I thought that was dismissed by the PJ as it being GMcCann.
IIRC it was proved from the phone records that Gerry was elsewhere at the time.
IIRC it was proved from the phone records that Gerry was elsewhere at the time.
How could this be done? logically, I mean? If GM had a PAYG phone, it could have been him. If someone else had GM's phone in PDL at the same time, this man could still have been him.
How do phone records rule this out and where's the evidence of it being done, benice? Lagos Ben may be happy to accept your word, but you're hardly impartial, are you? 8(0(*
From Kates Book
Quote
One witness reported having seen Gerry in Lagos on 7th May on his mobile phone saying to somebody, 'Don't hurt Madeleine'. At the time we were both in Praia da Luz surrounded by media, police and embassy officials, as of course Gerry's phone records showed.
End Quote.
I don't know anything about mob phones or phone pings. But I do remember reading that phone pings established that Gerry could not have been in Lagos at that time. Soz haven't got time to look for that now.
With respect... that's no proof! In fact I find it odd that Kate even takes the time to refute something in this manner where she seems over-keen to play down a sighting almost. It draws attention to something that didn't really need to be mentioned. As Anne says, independent witnesses would be good. Phone pings are useless as there's no way of knowing who had Gerry's phone at the time really.
Thank you, I've never read that one! Bizarre!
You will find the GNR had that pink blanket.
It never was missing - it was given to Portuguese Dog handler.
The just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLOS-LACAO.htm
With respect... that's no proof! In fact I find it odd that Kate even takes the time to refute something in this manner where she seems over-keen to play down a sighting almost. It draws attention to something that didn't really need to be mentioned. As Anne says, independent witnesses would be good. Phone pings are useless as there's no way of knowing who had Gerry's phone at the time really.
It's scarcely worth arguing about. And obviously if the final report is basing its findings on the work of the PJ... well suddenly it seems you're quite happy with the work the PJ did? It's child's play to get a PAYG phone abroad. GM could easily have done it. Are there independent witnesses detailing where he was on the 7th? I've not looked into it, neither am I claiming it's likely it was him - merely that it's possible without having to be too clever to achieve it.
It's scarcely worth arguing about. And obviously if the final report is basing its findings on the work of the PJ... well suddenly it seems you're quite happy with the work the PJ did? It's child's play to get a PAYG phone abroad. GM could easily have done it. Are there independent witnesses detailing where he was on the 7th? I've not looked into it, neither am I claiming it's likely it was him - merely that it's possible without having to be too clever to achieve it.
Does anyone know if the two sisters who claimed to have seen Murat nearby 5A on the evening of the 3rd May ever gave a statement to Portuguese police. Apparently they made a statement to Leicester police but don't know if it was taken any further.
It is a tabloid though, but among other odd things
"It was odd because I hadn't seen them before" ?{)(**
11 hours thanks to Mr Mitchell ! Lucky sisters ! Where is the statement ? So useless that the LC didn't send it?
Yes it's a puzzle why there are no statements in the files. I was wondering whether the descriptions given of blonde men in the CW prog took their descriptions of the 2 men they saw on the balcony into consideration.It looks like it. Who else mentioned those two men ? Doesn't MW have an explanation for their presence in 5C (may be the flat wasn't rented to MW) ?
An interesting article here about them Drummer.
British witnesses: 'We saw two blond men on balcony next to Madeleine apartment'
By FIONA BARTON, DAN NEWLING and VANESSA ALLEN
Last updated at 15:55 31 December 2007
Two British sisters gave a dramatic account of a pair of strangers watching the Ocean Club pool and tapas bar hours before Madeleine McCann vanished.
In an exclusive interview, Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire told how they saw two blond men in their 30s, standing on the balcony of an empty apartment only a couple of doors away from the McCanns' flat in Praia da Luz.
And they provided further evidence that Robert Murat, the first official suspect in the case, lied about his whereabouts on the night Madeleine disappeared.
Mrs Jensen, a 54-year-old businesswoman, says she saw Mr Murat outside the McCann apartment half an hour after the alarm was raised.
The expatriate estate agent claims he was at home with his elderly mother all night, but it has emerged that a British barrister on holiday with his wife and children has corroborated Mrs Jensen's account.
Although the two sisters contacted Portuguese police within hours of Madeleine's disappearance, their evidence was ignored for six months.
The women met police three times within 24 hours, tried to find out who the strangers were themselves and made several follow-up phone calls to the authorities.
But it was not until six weeks ago that a formal statement was finally taken.
The two women, both divorcees from Maidstone, Kent, spent 11 hours with British police officers providing details of their evidence and later met private detectives from Metodo 3, the agency employed by the McCanns to find their daughter.
They intended to remain anonymous but when their names were leaked to a Portuguese newspaper and they found themselves wrongly accused of waiting eight months before coming forward, they decided to reveal the truth.
The sisters said they were immediately struck by the behaviour of the two men on the balcony.
The pair, tanned and in Bermuda shorts, were standing outside the patio doors of a groundfloor apartment, which had been unoccupied all week, and were looking out over the resort's family swimming pool and restaurant area.
Mrs Wiltshire, 58, a mother of two, said: "It was odd because I hadn't seen them before. In May the resort wasn't busy.
"There were only about 60 of us staying in the apartments and you got to recognise all the other people.
"One of the guys was walking down the steps and as I looked at him, he walked back up and started talking to the other one.
"They had a view of the whole Ocean Club and the McCanns' apartment. It just showed how easy it would be for anyone to use those balconies to watch the area. It has haunted me ever since."
That evening - May 3 - Madeleine disappeared from her bed as her parents, Gerry and Kate ate dinner with seven friends in the tapas bar.
The sisters, who helped search for the child that night, went to police the next day to report the sighting of the strangers and their concerns.
Mrs Wiltshire, who went on holiday with her sister to recover from a cancer operation, said: "The theory is that Madeleine could have been targeted. This story proves how easily it could have been done but the Portuguese police were not interested.
"It makes you wonder if there are more of us out there who have tried and not succeeded in reporting things they saw but have given up.
"They might not have been as persistent and tenacious as us but we were determined to get the information to the police somehow."
The two women had been in Praia da Luz for a week before the McCanns - Gerry, Kate, three-year-old Madeleine and two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie - arrived with a party of doctors for a short break.
Mrs Jensen and her sister were in the same daily tennis coaching group as Mr McCann. It was organised by Mark Warner, the tour operator which manages the Ocean Club complex.
"We never met Kate," Mrs Jensen said. "And we never socialised with Gerry. We just played tennis."
On the evening of May 3, the sisters ate in the same tapas restaurant as the McCann party.
Neither of them remembers the doctors being rowdy or drinking heavily that night, as other witnesses have suggested.
Mrs Jensen, a bar manager, said: "They were not noisy or dominating the restaurant. They were just a party of friends enjoying a meal."
The sisters finished their dinner and left to walk down into the village for a nightcap.
"We were on the way to the bar when we heard the hue and cry about a missing child," added Mrs Jensen.
"The Mark Warner staff were being called on their phones and everyone thought it was a child who had wandered out of her room, looking for her parents.
"Apparently it had happened before and there was a drill they carried out. I left Annie in the bar and came back up to the apartments to see if I could help. It was only then I realised the scale of the search.
"I went straight into the creche area and checked the play area and Wendy House but found nothing."
It was then that Mrs Jensen saw 34-year-old Mr Murat for the first time. She saw a man light a cigarette as he stood on the street corner opposite the McCanns' ground-floor apartment.
She said: "I had semi-given up smoking and was thinking I could do with a cigarette when this bloke just along the pavement from me lit up. I noticed him but didn't think anything more of it."
A middle-aged barrister, a nearneighbour of Mrs Jensen in the holiday complex, has told police that he spoke to her at the time and also saw Mr Murat.
The next day, said Mrs Jensen, Mr Murat introduced himself to her and her sister.
"It was hideous when we realised that the little girl had not been found. It really began to hit home that something horrible had happened.
"I thought maybe she had fallen down a manhole, or hit her head. I didn't think she had been taken at that point and we helped search bins and scrubland."
As they and the other holidaymakers combed the area, Mrs Jensen met another member of her tennis coaching group, TV producer Jez Wilkins.
"Jez told me it was Gerry's daughter we were looking for. I hadn't realised before that moment.
"Jez said that he knew Gerry had checked the children because he had met him coming back from the apartment."
As the hours passed without any sighting of Madeleine, Mrs Wiltshire became increasingly concerned about the strangers she had seen the day before.
She said: "I didn't know if it was significant or not but I needed to tell the police in case it helped.
"I got a member of Mark Warner's staff to get a policeman to come and see me and told two officers about the men I had seen.
"I told them they were blond and one had curly hair. One was stockier than the other and they had obviously just opened the gate and walked up to the balcony.
"I showed the policemen the balcony and as I was explaining the circumstances, Robert Murat appeared and started translating for me."
Mr Murat was acting as an unofficial interpreter for the police and Mrs Wiltshire assumed he was part of the police force.
Later that day, she and her sister bumped into him again and he asked them if they needed any more help with the police and whether they had remembered anything else.
Mrs Jensen said: "He said he was helping the police because he lived locally and he was very helpful."
That evening, the two sisters joined the barrister and his wife for a glass of wine on the balcony of their apartment.
They were discussing Madeleine's disappearance and the apparent failure of the police to set up a crime scene when Mr Murat walked past, saw them and joined them uninvited.
Mrs Jensen said: "He was wearing a blue T-shirt and jeans and he said he needed to go home and change because it had been a long day, which was odd, because he had already changed out of the clothes he had been wearing earlier."
After Mr Murat left, the barrister told the sisters he found him "odd".
His wife was distraught about Madeleine's disappearance and the couple were desperate to leave the resort. Their names have not been revealed.
Mrs Jensen insists she is not conducting "a witch hunt" against Mr Murat.
"It was only after he was made an arguido (official suspect) that I realised any of this information could be important."
Other witnesses who have placed Mr Murat near the McCann apartment that night include Mark Warner nanny Charlotte Pennington, two tourists who contacted Metodo 3 independently and three of the McCanns' friends, Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien.
But friends and family of Mr Murat insisted he was not there. His mother Jennifer, 71, said: "People who say he was outside Madeleine's apartment that night are telling lies.
"I challenge them to tell Portuguese police what they're telling the McCanns' investigators."
When Mrs Jensen got home, she made a number of calls to police and Crimestoppers. She gave them an outline of the sightings and was told someone would call her back but nobody did.
In September, the two women went back to Praia da Luz to try to make direct contact with the McCanns but as they arrived, Kate and Gerry were made official suspects and left to return to Britain.
The sisters admit they might have let things go at that point but the constant mention of Madeleine in the press kept nagging at them.
In desperation they finally e-mailed the McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell and told him what they knew.
Within days, they were contacted by Leicestershire police who apologised for the delay and sent an officer round to interview them.
"They were there for 11 hours, finishing at midnight and we finally got to sign a statement," added Mrs Jensen.
"All we wanted was to get the information to the right people. It is just ridiculous that no one would help us."
A spokesman for the McCanns said: "We remain extremely grateful to Annie and Jayne for making the efforts they have to get their information to us.
"They have been trying since day one and have only wanted to help Kate and Gerry find Madeleine.
"They are utterly credible witnesses and we are very grateful to them."
"Kate said in her novel that Gerry suggested they might flee Portugal hidden in the boot of a car."
Is this true?
Kate says, in her book :
Gerry was seriously considering sneaking us into a car and driving us all across the border to Spain
This was on the evening they had both become Arguido and believed charges were likely
Kate says, in her book :
Gerry was seriously considering sneaking us into a car and driving us all across the border to Spain
This was on the evening they had both become Arguido and believed charges were likely
The full quote is:
The prospect of being separated from Sean and Amelie, holed up in jail, unable to prepare our defence properly was terrifying. Gerry was seriously considering sneaking us into a car and driving us all across the border to Spain. It would have been crazy. The whole world would have thought we were guilty, and maybe that was what the police were hoping we'd do.
Most people find it hard to comprehend how innocent people can confess to crimes they haven't committed. Gerry and I don't. Not now. The monumental psychological duress we were under can easily lead to bad, irrational decision-making. Thankfully we resisted the urge to flee. When we left Portugal. it would be with the blessing of the PJ and our head held high.
END QUOTE
partial quote:-
.........................Saturday 8 September........................we were notified by Liz Dow, the British consul in Lisbon that Luis Neves and Guilhermino Encaracao had declared us 'free' to leave the country whenever we wished.
End quote.
The McCanns had already decided (on 27th August) to leave before the date they were made arguidos and had made arrangements to come home on Monday 10th September. After being made arguidos and no doubt therefore with all hope gone that the PJ were searching for their daughter - and the real perpetrators, they decided to follow the advice of their lawyers and leave ASAP. So they left on the 9th instead of the 10th.
To claim they 'fled ' because they were made Arguidos is not strictly true - they were coming home anyway.
And who can blame them. I certainly don't. Who in their right mind would stay in a hostile foreign country where you'd just discovered the police were trying to pin a heinous crime on you which you didn't commit.
Then of course, who in their right mind would leave 3 small children undefended in an unlocked apartment in in a foreign country, the first place ?
The full quote is:How ridiculous ! In jail ! If you're proved to have exposed your children you get a fine. Only if you don't want to pay it, you go to jail.
The prospect of being separated from Sean and Amelie, holed up in jail, unable to prepare our defence properly was terrifying.
I see you're still trying to convince yourself that the McCanns invented the Listening method of child checking for parents on holiday Stephen.
If you care so passionately about it - why don't you track down all the hotels etc who still offer this service and lobby them to withdraw it. IMO that would be far more productive than spamming this forum with the same old mantra - and think how good you would feel about yourself if you managed to get just one hotel to withdraw the service.
Just a suggestion.
How ridiculous ! In jail ! If you're proved to have exposed your children you get a fine. Only if you don't want to pay it, you go to jail.
What are fines made for ? To change people's mentalities ? No, it's just an attempt to dissuade them of doing wrong again. Next time they likely pay a baby sitter, it's cheaper.
Arguidos are just witnesses assisted by a legal advisor.
They're not separated from their kids nor put to jail.
But they become "people of interest"... which is a bit different from "victims". Hence the insinuation they were victims of a police more obsessed by finding a guilty one than Madeleine.
IMO They were not talking about being aguidos. But if the PJ could get it so wrong as to make them arquidos in the first place then what else could they be facing - arrest? They had no way of knowing what was going to happen in the future - but they did know the PJ were trying to pin the crime on them - so why on earth would they want to stay.Portugal is a State of Law, whether you like it or not. Nobody "pins" murder on nobody here. There's a constitution, a written one (not like in the UK), that guarantees respect to human beings.
Portugal is a State of Law, whether you like it or not. Nobody "pins" murder on nobody here. There's a constitution, a written one (not like in the UK), that guarantees respect to human beings.
You refuse, Benice, to understand what an arguido is, perhaps because it doesn't suit your agenda which is to portrait the McCanns as major victims of abducting monsters, venal media and criminal police officers.
According to you they deserve heaven without confession. Good. But the time hasn't yet come.
No jail for disposal of a body, but a fine and if you don't pay it, yes jail.
Are you now saying that Amaral did NOT think they had disposed of the dead body of their child - for which I presume a jail sentence would be imposed - and that all they had to fear was fine and that prison was never a possibility?
Crimes DO get 'pinned' on innocent people, miscarriages of justice DO happen. Are you saying that because you have a written Constitution that has never happened in Portugal? If so Portugal must be the only country in the world who can make that claim.
No jail for disposal of a body, but a fine and if you don't pay it, yes jail.
I never said that there were no miscarriages of justice in Portugal, but that in this particular case it was impossible : too many observers and too many authorities having involved themselves in the protection and pain of parents who had lost a child.
Sorry Anne, I find that impossible to believe. If it is true then IMO there is something seriously wrong with some of Portugal's laws.What's wrong, Benice ? This isn't a crime, but a misdemeanor.
What's wrong, Benice ? This isn't a crime, but a misdemeanor.
In France, concealing or keeping the body of a person who died from an homicide or from the consequences of violence (if you're not the murderer) is punished with 2 years of jail or a fine of 30 000 euros.
Is there "something seriously wrong with some of France's laws" ?
Now a crime, a manslaughter :
A man smacked his lover in a passionate discussion, she fell on some hard piece of furniture and died. He loved her, but he did smack her. He got 8 years jail in Vilnius, was conditionally freed after 4. He's a famous musician, his lover was a famous actress.
Do you find it abnormal ?
What has French law got to do with Portuguese law and what has your second para got to do with the McCann case?You found impossible to believe that disposal of a body would cost a fine or 3 years jail (if you don't want to pay) and claimed "there is something seriously wrong with some of Portugal's laws."
I note in both cases prison sentences are the penalty. Surely this contradicts your claim that only a fine would have been imposed on the McCanns?
You found impossible to believe that disposal of a body would cost a fine or 3 years jail (if you don't want to pay) and claimed "there is something seriously wrong with some of Portugal's laws."
In France it's less than in Portugal, 2 years jail if you don't want to pay.
How is it in the UK ? Do you know ?
Don't misquote me Anne. It was you who said only a fine would be levied. I said IF THAT WAS TRUE there was something seriously wrong with Portugal's laws. The whole point of your original post was that you were disputing what Kate said about being in prison. You claimed the idea of prison was ''ridiculous ''and only a fine would be imposed.Benice, you don't seem to understand that it is fine OR jail. Up to who is condemned.
Offences Concerning the CoronerThank you for that, Cariad !
Obstructing a Coroner - Preventing the Burial of a Body
Any disposal of a corpse with intent to obstruct or prevent a coroner's inquest, when there is a duty to hold one, is an offence. The offence is a common law offence, triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine.
The offence of preventing the burial of a body (indictable only, unlimited imprisonment) is an alternative charge. Proof of this offence does not require proof of the specific intent required for obstructing a coroner.
The offences of obstructing a coroner and preventing the burial of a body may arise for example, when a person decides to conceal the innocent and unexpected death of a relative or friend or prevent his burial. Such cases inevitably raise sensitive public interest factors which must be carefully considered.
When the evidence supports a charge of involuntary manslaughter, it may be necessary to add a charge of obstructing a coroner or preventing a burial if the disposal of the body is more serious than the unlawful act which caused the death.
Obstructing a coroner may also amount to an offence of perverting the course of justice. Regard must be had to the factors outlined in General Charging Practice, above in this guidance and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this guidance, which help to identify conduct too serious to charge as obstructing a coroner, when consideration should be given to a charge of perverting the course of justice.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/#a37
It seems as though there is massive scope for sentencing in the UK. It carries the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and or a fine!
Thank you for that, Cariad !
Many modalities have to be contemplated, but it's an offence, not a crime. This sort of Lord who lived for months with the cadaver of his wife in his huge mansion wasn't really perverting the course of justice nor obstructing the coroner's inquest, it was a natural death he couldn't accept.
In many cases the guilty one is not a danger for society, so there's no reason to put him/her in jail.
Imagine Madeleine was killed by a driver who just didn't see her because it was dark and she was small. It's an accident, but the man is horrified and in a denying process buries the body. He doesn't intend to pervert the course of justice, he just refuses reality. But the course of justice has been perverted all the same..
I'd forgotten about that case! He received two suspended sentences, so no prison time at all.And no fine. It's not so rare, I believe, when two human beings zone out and one's sudden death leaves the other like mutilated.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/14/eva-rausing-died-cocaine-abuse
Imagine Madeleine was killed by a driver who just didn't see her because it was dark and she was small. It's an accident, but the man is horrified and in a denying process buries the body. He doesn't intend to pervert the course of justice, he just refuses reality. But the course of justice has been perverted all the same..
Thank you for that, Cariad !
Many modalities have to be contemplated, but it's an offence, not a crime. This sort of Lord who lived for months with the cadaver of his wife in his huge mansion wasn't really perverting the course of justice nor obstructing the coroner's inquest, it was a natural death he couldn't accept.
In many cases the guilty one is not a danger for society, so there's no reason to put him/her in jail.
Imagine Madeleine was killed by a driver who just didn't see her because it was dark and she was small. It's an accident, but the man is horrified and in a denying process buries the body. He doesn't intend to pervert the course of justice, he just refuses reality. But the course of justice has been perverted all the same..
What's wrong, Benice ? This isn't a crime, but a misdemeanor.
In France, concealing or keeping the body of a person who died from an homicide or from the consequences of violence (if you're not the murderer) is punished with 2 years of jail or a fine of 30 000 euros.
Is there "something seriously wrong with some of France's laws" ?
Now a crime, a manslaughter :
A man smacked his lover in a passionate discussion, she fell on some hard piece of furniture and died. He loved her, but he did smack her. He got 8 years jail in Vilnius, was conditionally freed after 4. He's a famous musician, his lover was a famous actress.
Do you find it abnormal ?
How ridiculous ! In jail ! If you're proved to have exposed your children you get a fine. Only if you don't want to pay it, you go to jail.
What are fines made for ? To change people's mentalities ? No, it's just an attempt to dissuade them of doing wrong again. Next time they likely pay a baby sitter, it's cheaper.
I see you're still trying to convince yourself that the McCanns invented the Listening method of child checking for parents on holiday Stephen.
If you care so passionately about it - why don't you track down all the hotels etc who still offer this service and lobby them to withdraw it. IMO that would be far more productive than spamming this forum with the same old mantra - and think how good you would feel about yourself if you managed to get just one hotel to withdraw the service.
Just a suggestion.
Portugal is a State of Law, whether you like it or not. Nobody "pins" murder on nobody here. There's a constitution, a written one (not like in the UK), that guarantees respect to human beings.
You refuse, Benice, to understand what an arguido is, perhaps because it doesn't suit your agenda which is to portrait the McCanns as major victims of abducting monsters, venal media and criminal police officers.
According to you they deserve heaven without confession. Good. But the time hasn't yet come.
Every country has corruption and stupidity built into its legal system because people are stupid and corrupt. There are ways to attempt to limit it, but it occurs everywhere. Are you telling me that Portugal has the only error free system in the world.
I think what's she's saying is that Portugal has the rule of law and isn't a banana republic, as some are trying to present it.
Anyway, I'd dispute your claim that "every country has corruption and stupidity built into its legal system". I think most western legal systems are rather good. The problem isn't with the system, it's with how it's used and abused.
Aoife is pronounced [ˈiːfʲə]
How do you pronounce the improbable Aiofe ?
Aoife is pronounced [ˈiːfʲə]
How do you pronounce the improbable Aiofe ?
Aiofe, dear, I'm sorry this notion is a little too complicated for you. The "legal system" is the legal principles, laws and practices that a state follows. The legal system itself in most western countries is good, in terms of the laws, principles, concepts upon which it's based. Miscarriages of justice are the result of the system being abused, they are not the result of the principles of the legal system.
Just to compound your embarrassment:
http://www.allmusic.com/artist/aiofe-clancy-mn0000925376/biography
http://www.carlyrodgers.co.uk/aiofe-and-mark-in-dublin/
http://www.jacquelineelizabeth.com/aiofe-jeff-tofino-wedding/
http://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-aiofe-egan-gbb98
https://www.facebook.com/aiofe.maire
http://www.nytimes.com/movies/person/1670126/Aiofe-Mulally
and more than 20 pages on Google search for people named Aiofe.
Both Aiofe and Aoife are transliterating a difficult Gaelic vowel "í" and both versions are used.
Please avoid petty and distracting off subject attacks.
"The Interpretation of Murder" - a strange title of a book to read after your daughter has gone missing and could possibly be murdered? Very strange our the McCann's.
"The Interpretation of Murder" - a strange title of a book to read after your daughter has gone missing and could possibly be murdered? Very strange our the McCann's.
Aiofe, dear, I'm sorry this notion is a little too complicated for you. The "legal system" is the legal principles, laws and practices that a state follows. The legal system itself in most western countries is good, in terms of the laws, principles, concepts upon which it's based. Miscarriages of justice are the result of the system being abused, they are not the result of the principles of the legal system.
Anne Guedes original ststement was:No. Legal systems don't generate miscarriages.
"Portugal is a State of Law, whether you like it or not. Nobody "pins" murder on nobody here."
So she was claiming that because there is the rule of Law in Portugal, miscarriages of Justice by 'framing' are impossible.
that does not follow.
Every Legal system has miscarriages.
Except that it had just been published in 2007 and was at the top of the best seller list- I expect many serious readers took it as holiday reading- I did.
Publication Date: 15 Jan 2007
A dazzling literary thriller - the story of Sigmund Freud assisting a Manhattan murder investigation. Think SHADOW OF THE WIND meets THE HISTORIAN.
THE INTERPRETATION OF MURDER is an inventive tour de force inspired by Sigmund Freud's 1909 visit to America, accompanied by prot?g? and rival Carl Jung. When a wealthy young debutante is discovered bound, whipped and strangled in a luxurious apartment overlooking the city, and another society beauty narrowly escapes the same fate, the mayor of New York calls upon Freud to use his revolutionary new ideas to help the surviving victim recover her memory of the attack, and solve the crime. But nothing about the attacks - or about the surviving victim, Nora - is quite as it seems. And there are those in very high places determined to stop the truth coming out, and Freud's startling theories taking root on American soil.
That was one of the worst books I ever had the misfortune of wasting my time trying to read.
That was one of the worst books I ever had the misfortune of wasting my time trying to read.
No. Legal systems don't generate miscarriages.
And please don't pretend I said what I didn't, extracting sentences from context.
That is exactly what you said.No.
No.
It is copied and pasted from your previous post.This was a reply, I wouldn't have used the words "pin murder".
Portugal is a State of Law, whether you like it or not. Nobody "pins" murder on nobody here. There's a constitution, a written one (not like in the UK), that guarantees respect to human beings.
You refuse, Benice, to understand what an arguido is, perhaps because it doesn't suit your agenda which is to portrait the McCanns as major victims of abducting monsters, venal media and criminal police officers.
According to you they deserve heaven without confession. Good. But the time hasn't yet come.
Reply 43 22nd October
This was a reply, I wouldn't have used the words "pin murder".
I hope your allies are proud of you (I certainly don't ever see them condemn your xenophobia)
This is really uncanny...only last night was i sat thinking about the past week events ....and was [albeit wishful thinking] expecting the concrete around he mccs to crack ...but as yet this doesn't seem likely again.I agree about the child wearing so few clothes ... but it wasn't so very cold. 16* at 10pm, so maybe a coupla degrees warmer at 9.15pm, if that is the time they have settled on.
ararom the beginning ...nothing IMO seemed to fit ...[at first my heart went out to them] then felt some thing was not right some thing was very wrong.without listing numerous things it is as if they knew from the beginning they were in for the long haul.....an never IMO acted lile they thought maddie was with a peado or in any real danger ....at one point felt it was a scam ...as in maddie would turn up in a church or some where perfectly safe...
None of it ever makes sense ...if it was a film you would think it too far fetched ..over the top..to unbelievable..
but it is real and this is why last night trying to make sense of it i actually thought could it be someone knows who has her ....and this is why it is they get so so much protection ....like from the beginnig Gordon brown was involved it turned political.....government top pr man [clarence mitchel] at there beck and call every time in a corner ..it always went there way [too many instances to mention]
like the op ...it could be it did happen yet another thing changed to suit....the many many people i have talke to about this case everyone who have thought the mccs innocent all agree that something is not right ...
Now OK within the click of a finger the 9 15 sighting doesn't fit ....ye right if a child was lifted from a bed in a hurry accectable to be dressed in only pyjamas ....
but comeeee onnnnn not when picked up from a creche in the cold of night carried in that position[not snuggled up to his body] wearing no coat ..................or shoes/slippers
just trying to make some sense of it all...
Did the McCanns use the "Listening method"? I thought they didn't use any of the various child care services offered by the Club, and opted instead for the "checking method" of looking in every half hour (i.e. once an hour).i.e.Once an hour !
But you did use those words and I quoted them exactly.Once again it was a reply to a poster who used these words in a certain context ? Do kindly find the post to which I reacted.
Once again it was a reply to a poster who used these words in a certain context ? Do kindly find the post to which I reacted.
Portugal is a State of Law, whether you like it or not. Nobody "pins" murder on nobody here. There's a constitution, a written one (not like in the UK), that guarantees respect to human beings.
You refuse, Benice, to understand what an arguido is, perhaps because it doesn't suit your agenda which is to portrait the McCanns as major victims of abducting monsters, venal media and criminal police officers.
According to you they deserve heaven without confession. Good. But the time hasn't yet come.
Every country has corruption and stupidity built into its legal system because people are stupid and corrupt. There are ways to attempt to limit it, but it occurs everywhere. Are you telling me that Portugal has the only error free system in the world.
i.e.Once an hour !
There are full statement records showing that visual checks were once every half hour + another which was a listening check.
Are you starting another myth Aegean?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
"Nevertheless, it can also be concluded from the files that this surveillance with the periodicity that was mentioned above was not the one that is alleged in the files"
"They didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did"
Stop spreading myths sadie.
If you accept that this is gospel, then you must also accept the sentence:
"The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code."
from the same document.
No cherry picking please.
So do you accept that there was no indication of the commission of an illegal act by the McCanns?
Do you accept their is some evidence of dishonesty?
I have no way of knowing what was in their minds at the time. The may have been telling purposeful lies, they may have been accidentally mistaken.http://www.mccannfiles.com/id107.html
As with Amaral's thesis, I am willing to give both camps the benefit of the doubt- I have no evidence that either party was lying, but I can see that there are inconsistencies in what they have stated.
Lying is a very strong word and should only be used to mean what it does mean- telling an untruth with the intention of misleading.
MONDAY, JULY 23: I got up at 7.00 and went running. I was surrounded by a pack of dogs (more or less 12)—it really wasn't a nice experience. I went to the flat, high part of the cliff as I felt really alone and a little frightened. Please God, don't let Madeleine be buried here. Please God, make sure she's alive. Please God, bring her back quickly to us.
Are there packs of wild dogs roaming Praia da Luz? Surrounded by 12 dogs?
BTW does anyone remember the bloody wall somewhere on the streets of PDL.. there were photos of it either in files or on the news.
This was investigated by the police.
I am really interested to have a look at this again!!!
EDIT: I did find the photos of the bloody wall in the files but not the result..
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P7/07_VOLUME_VI1a_Page_1812.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P7/07_VOLUME_VI1a_Page_1813.jpg
and the address where these were found on 6th May 2007 from the wall of Quinta dos Figos, PDL
But no results!!!
Anyone? Were these ever compared to Madeleines DNA?
If you accept that this is gospel, then you must also accept the sentence:
"The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code."
from the same document.
No cherry picking please.
So do you accept that there was no indication of the commission of an illegal act by the McCanns?
MONDAY, JULY 23: I got up at 7.00 and went running. I was surrounded by a pack of dogs (more or less 12)—it really wasn't a nice experience. I went to the flat, high part of the cliff as I felt really alone and a little frightened. Please God, don't let Madeleine be buried here. Please God, make sure she's alive. Please God, bring her back quickly to us.This is possible, not 12, but 3, 4 maximum...
Are there packs of wild dogs roaming Praia da Luz? Surrounded by 12 dogs?
This is possible, not 12, but 3, 4 maximum...
Portuguese wild dogs frighten because they're obviously hungry, but they're civilised, they don't attack.
It seems God's deaf or for some reason angry.
This is possible, not 12, but 3, 4 maximum...
Portuguese wild dogs frighten because they're obviously hungry, but they're civilised, they don't attack.
It seems God's deaf or for some reason angry.
"All the apartments were searched by the dogs and when they arrived at apartment 5 J they began to sniff with intensity at the entrance door. During this behaviour it was noted by the PJ officers that there must be some unusual odour, but which with all certainty did not have anything to do with the odour being searched for, but there must have been something strange inside.
After entering the apartment, it was observed that the dour came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables." (10th May)
Very strange the fridge being left open with rotting meat and vegetables inside. Who owned apartment 5J and who was using it? Who had keys?
Does anyone know the date of the fridge being dumped blog entry that was deleted? What was the date? Thanks.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
"Nevertheless, it can also be concluded from the files that this surveillance with the periodicity that was mentioned above was not the one that is alleged in the files"
"They didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did"
Stop spreading myths sadie.
Do NOT call me a liar. I am quoting the PJ files. THe individual statements back each other with very little discrepancy, well within the limits of normality. And there is penty of backing by the waiters
An apology please.
The quotation you give is made by a police force that is embarrassed at how badly they did. It is called sour grapes.
The persons behind the FINAL REPORT cannot KNOW whether the time line is accurate or not. THey were NOT there, Everything ties fairly well and the waiters and Jez support it
At least three independent witnesses have shown that the tapas group lied about the 15 minute checks.
Their evidence is beyond reproach.
IIRC it was only JT and Russell who said they checked every 15 mins. - and they are referring to the night of the 3rd May - where you can see from their statements that is true.
Russell checked just before 9.00.
Jane checked at around 9.15
Russell checked again at 9.30 and stayed at the apartment.
Jane then went to relieve him so that he could have his meal, and she stayed at the apartment.
Do NOT call me a liar. I am quoting the PJ files. THe individual statements back each other with very little discrepancy, well within the limits of normality. And there is penty of backing by the waiters
An apology please.
The quotation you give is made by a police force that is embarrassed at how badly they did. It is called sour grapes.
The persons behind the FINAL REPORT cannot KNOW whether the time line is accurate or not. THey were NOT there, Everything ties fairly well and the waiters and Jez support it
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2866.0
Yep, there have been seven at 2 year intervals + one that failed just under 5 months before Madeleine was taken .... and that was only 18 miles (ish) away from PdL
They all fell in the north of Porto region, or in the PdL region . That is 300 miles apart, but each group is quite tiny.
In the pdl region just before Madeleine
... a failed abduction under 5 months before Madeleine was taken, of a pretty little 5 3 year old, blond haired girl called Carolina Santos was walked off in Silves
And that was just 18 miles away. Think about it!
2 years 4 months prior to Carolina, a fair haired pretty little seven year old girl, Joana Cipriano, was almost certainly taken from Figueira, just 7 miles away from PdL
So three pretty fair haired girls taken in a period of 2 years 8 months . All within a distance of 18 miles from PDL
this is a myth, never happened
So a myth started about dumping a fridge before the McCann's were made arguidos in September. Strange so what date did the myth start? I thought it would be June/July time.
"Err the, I know that again, you know Kate and Gerry had had problems err with I think it was the blinds in their flat and the fridge and they’d had people in err you know into the flat, you know which obviously retrospectively was a concern as well. Err yeah that, you know who were those people, had they been checked out." (David Payne 11 April 2008)
DP has a way with mixing up words >@@(*&)
”There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that."
At least three independent witnesses have shown that the tapas group lied about the 15 minute checks.
Their evidence is beyond reproach.
They received the hire car on Sun 27 May. Have we a time?
27 May Diary: "I went for a walk to the beach with Sean and Amelie. Frozen. Beach—slippery, wet feet."
Early night? - Last ping at 20:52
28 May... First ping of the day at 10:07 (Later than normal)
SAT 2 JUNE - Diary: I can't remember today (which is now yesterday!).
"Lagos Norte" (20:11:08). Returning to Praia da Luz, where it activated antenna "Praia da Luz Centre" at 22:46:11.
A big discrepancy to check. 2 1/2 hour gap from Lagos to PDL. This is very interesting!
At the time I travelled with Anne-Marie on 8 June, Kate and Gerry had rented a vehicle. It had seven seats, I judged [thought] it to be a Renault Espace. Gerry suggested that I be added to the insured driver's list so that I could drive it while they were in Morocco, but I judged [thought] that to be unnecessary as they would only be gone for a few days. When I was in Portugal on 12 July I was picked up by Kate who was driving the Renault Espace.
It was on our trip to Portugal on 22 August that Gerry suggested that I was added to the contract as an additional driver and I accepted. Gerry and I went to Lagos and I was included in the contract as additional driver.
I drove the car regularly in August and September, doing the shopping at the supermarket, taking the house and garden rubbish to the recycling area in PdL and also taking the twins to creche and to the beach, and trips to the airport. I was also a passenger in the car at various times, mainly in June and July when Gerry and Sandy drove.
Rog 16.04.2008
Which doesnt tally at all with the rental contractsanother anomaly.
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/gmb/PJ/RENTAL_CONTRACTS-1.htm
Oh well, must be nothing
Thanks to you both for the great info. SAT 2 JUNE has got me interested on both the 2.5 hour ping gap and the diary entry I can't remember today. What places north of Lagos at 30 minutes drive?
Date of Inspection: 13th June 2007
Place: Lagos. EN 125 in the Portimao-Lagos direction, turn before Odiaxere to Varzea do Arau. Arao road, km 5.1, next to the road on the right about 4 metres from the verge.
Description of the site: Shrub land (at the beginning of a dirt track).
1 blanket in a poor state of conservation, pink on one side and orange on the other.
Extract from the statement of GNR officer, Carlos Manuel Carvalho Lacao:
'When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCann's apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the McCann couple. They just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
They began searching with the dogs from the main entrance to the apartment, having given the blanket to his dog Numi to smell and begin to search.'
I presume they still have it as possible evidence. "the area is so wide that you should be there with 100 searchers."
So did the GNR dispose of the Pink/Orange Blanket on the roadside after it had failed to produce any results ?
I can't see that happening.
Madeleine's pink blanket wasn't seen again after the 4th May. This blanket was found on 13 June after a letter was addressed to a dutch newspaper telling the location where Madeleine was buried.
Officers in Portugal are investigating the letter's claims and are poised to visit Odiaxere. Dutch police said part of the reason the letter was being taken so seriously was because it was similar to one sent to the same newspaper last June following the disappearance from the city of Liege, in Belgium, of two girls: Stacy Lemmens, seven, and Natalie Mahy, 10.
In that case the author claimed to know where the girls had been buried. The children's bodies were found two weeks later in a storm drain near a railway crossing a short distance from the location identified in the letter.
Sita Koenders, from the Dutch police headquarters in Amsterdam, said today De Telegraaf had received the letter on Monday and passed it straight to the police.
"We carried out forensic investigations straight away and, as soon as the report from the forensic tests came in, we sent it to the Portuguese police. We are awaiting instructions from the Portuguese and will start an inquiry into finding the author if that is required," Mr Koenders said.
"We are taking this very, very seriously. We have to."
EN 125 in the Portimao-Lagos direction, turn before Odiaxere to Varzea do Arau. Arao road, km 5.1, next to the road on the right about 4 metres from the verge.From junction (A) and go about 5.1km to (B) which matches the photo (see dirt track curving to the left in the background) http://binged.it/IcGICo ???
Does anyone remember the Petrol Station in Marrakesh (Mari Olli statement) and many white lorries being parked there and them being the same as a white lorry being parked next to 5A.
I remember this being discussed a lot back in 2007.. Was this big white lorry parked next to 5A ever investigated?
I remember the forum sending the info to the police but never knew if this was investigated??
Hi Red, It's very strange receiving this letter and then finding a blanket whether it was the one or not. Were there any other eye witness reports from this area?
Thanks Pegasus great work.
(http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9614/itof.jpg)
Cant find any reference to any white lorries in her statements and other correspondence
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Mari_Olli.htm
It wasn't her, it was people on forums that found that photo of the petrol station in question with the white lorries.. same lorries as a white lorry which was shown in google map of PDL, parked next to 5A. The info was sent to police. UK police I think..
Tenuous connections yet again....with no solid basis for suspicion...its normal for lorries to fill up on gas...at gas stations....its normal for lorries to be in the vicinity of a restaurant.....and yes, a lot of lorries are white....8)-)))
Re the witness who saw 2 men at 11pm 3rd May on Crimewatch.
The location is marked on the map they show on Crimewatch. It is on a corner at the base of LuzTur this is the highest building in the town. There are some similarities between that witness report, and an event in the files, where two searchers of the group, looking for the missing girl, happen while searching to meet somewhere between LuzTur and Baptista, briefly talking, then continuing their search. The location is similar and the time is similar. So maybe it is the same event? And the witness mistakenly interpreted it as arguing, when it was actually a brief discussion about where to search next?
Re the witness who saw 2 men at 11pm 3rd May on Crimewatch.
The location is marked on the map they show on Crimewatch. It is on a corner at the base of LuzTur this is the highest building in the town. There are some similarities between that witness report, and an event in the files, where two searchers of the group, looking for the missing girl, happen while searching to meet somewhere between LuzTur and Baptista, briefly talking, then continuing their search. The location is similar and the time is similar. So maybe it is the same event? And the witness mistakenly interpreted it as arguing, when it was actually a brief discussion about where to search next?
But ... have anyone here a reference to this incident happened on May 3rd. 2007 at 23:00, and that appeared at SY Crimewatch TV special programme on Madeleine?
Description: two men were talking aloud, when they saw the witness they went away.
Thanks.
Re lorries I mentioned earlier, I now remember there was an ITV news clip from the petrol station in Marrakech and in this clip the lorries were been parked just from the other side of the petrol station. Looked like a lorry rest area. This was in May 2007 but I cannot find this video anywhere. The ITV news team went to the petrol station. ( Mari Olli sighting)
The same if you looked at google earth the same type of a lorry was parked next to 5A, from the back ( front door side)
Does anyone remember this video, I would love to revisit it...
Im sure you would love to run up 1000 false garden paths for some reason.....bit of a waste of time.....there are hundreds of so called sightings all over the world...maybe start a project, researching them, instead of asking endless questions without doing your own research....then put them nto an excel file and post here......
There are at least 4 sightings in Morocco, more than everywhere else
Some semblance of normality and reality and rationality would explain people shouting when half the town was out searching that night! searchers are on video saying this is exactly what was happening, people were shouting left right and centre to each otherI agree, and so the 11pm sighting is likely to be two searchers, discussing briefly how bad the current situation is, that no-one has found her yet, and where to search next. If the witness does not understand the foreign language English and maybe is not aware yet that a child is missing, it would be easy to misinterpret a discussion between paniced searchers in the street. I think that is what it is, two completely innocent searchers desperately searching.
8((()*/
Wednesday 6 June 2007
Flight from Berlin to Amsterdam delayed due to anonymous phone call from an unidentified man to police saying he knew where Madeleine was and wanting to speak to the McCann's personally. The man reportedly made no further contact. K & G reportedly stayed in the Consulate or with the Ambassador while awaiting further news.
The hunt for abducted Madeleine McCann was linked to South America today for the first time.
It is understood a mysterious call claiming to know the whereabouts of the four-year-old came from a mobile phone registered in Argentina.
The "credible" call was considered so potentially significant that the McCanns halted their search of Europe to help police investigate.
They delayed their flight from Berlin to Amsterdam by three hours and plans were drawn up to divert to the UK.
It was thought the McCanns might need to return to Britain to talk to specialist advisers about the call.
The call from the pay-as-you-go phone came from a man who wanted to speak directly to the McCanns, according to Spanish police sources.
He did not reveal his identity or nationality, but the phone was soon linked to the South American country.
6 JUNE Blog- We did manage to catch up with a few friends briefly who we know from the year we lived in Amsterdam. They have been actively campaigning here on our behalf with poster distribution, contacting media and liasing with companies to get advertising space for large posters of Madeleine.
8 JUNE Blog - Sean, in particular has acquired a taste for sea-bass!
Monday 11 June
- De Telegraaf receives the anonymous letter allegedly identifying where the Madeleine's body has been buried. De Telegraaf passes this on immediately to the Amsterdam police.
Who are these friends in Amsterdam? The McCann's lived there for a year. That strange letter arrives just after their Amsterdam trip. Is there a connection between this anonymous caller and the letter? The letter arrives at the De Telegraaf in Amsterdam just after the McCann's have been there.
I suppose the Dutch police did check for fingerprints?
I have wondered if this was an attempt to have Madeleine found, but it went wrong.
The wallet was returned by FP/DP see pings, Outros Apensos 13, Jun 29 to July 02.
IMO that visit happened and its unlikely they invented it. I prefer to assume both those witnesses are honest. IMO there is information in the statements of both, about the inside of the apartment at discovery and shortly after, which is valuable in reconstructing what happened.
If DP was there then Kate wasn't wearing a towel because he would remember it. I don't believe Gerry would've been playing tennis if anything happened before 6pm. If something did happen then it was after DP's visit at 6.30pm and before Gerry returned from tennis at 7pm IMO.
Thanks for the info Pegasus.
The day after 2 June they announce a big event for Madeleine:
On 3 June 2007, Dr Gerald McCann said: “We want a big event to raise awareness she is still missing…It won’t be a one-year anniversary, it will be sooner than that”.
Where can I find the rest of these mobile record sheets? Thanks.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/SeocDnAHUFI/AAAAAAAARBE/CRq7GsB2E-0/s1600/mccann_phone_records.jpg)
You're a star this will keep me busy 8((()*/
I suppose the Dutch police did check for fingerprints?
I have wondered if this was an attempt to have Madeleine found, but it went wrong.
Perhaps Kate wasn't wearing anything, which would explain why Payne couldn't remember what she was wearing.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_13_TEL.htm
Happy hunting/trawling....as the header says not all t9 calls/texts are there, only some of them
Heres another link, not sure if the same, overlap or different
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PHONE_LISTINGS.htm
Also go onto mccannpjfiles.co.uk and do searches within the site under "mobile" "phone" "sms" and you should get links to all relevant files
Well surely he wouldn't have forgotten that....
A British man at the tapas bar where the McCanns dined gave a statement saying how he spoke to an English woman who told him she had heard a “breaking noise” about the time that Madeleine was taken.
His statement, however, was not passed to Portuguese police, said Goncalo Amaral
Sorry- ignore the above. Completely wrong reading of her statement. She says it is the next day when Jes tells her it´s Madeleine who has disappeared.
Sorry, Red, it´s not an official statement- it´s a press interview. It´s actually on one of the first pages of this thread.
I agree with you. Mr Mc Kenzie came forward in September after ringing Crimebusters with the statement about Gerry´s call around 23.00 on the 3rd May where he mentions that Maddie has quite possibly been taken by paedophiles. He then mentions the cigarette ends when they changed his flat on the last morning before returning to the airport. I suppose people just want to be helpful?
FRI 8 JUNE / SAT 9 JUNE
If they were told about the letter on the 8th it may explain why Gerry was absent from the church that night:
"Kate and most of the family headed down to the church for the regular Friday night vigil but I was just too shattered. Tomorrow will largely be a family day although I am not sure what we will be doing yet."
GM 8/6 Last ping 18:52 Next ping 9/6 9:40 - nearly 15 hour gap!
No early night for Kate though. Pinging up until 23:42. She actually has a ping for 01:25 later that night (9/6).
9/6 "After this we headed down to Sagres which is the very most southwestern tip of Portugal. There is a very nice beach and we had lunch with the family."
11:24 PdL Centro
{ 2.5 hour gap }
14:00 Sagres
{ 2.5 hour gap }
16:28 Budens
16:29 Budens
16:32 PdL
PdL to Sagres should be around a 30 minute drive.
If Gerry hadn't received that withheld call at 2pm there would be no proof his mobile ever travelled to Sagres.
That letter should have been kept secret. What's the point of the PJ doing a search if every tom, dick and harry knows about it 8-)(--)
Why did they have to get Madeleine's DNA sample back in England? So there was no DNA evidence of Madeleine found in 5A. They couldn't find her DNA on hairs found on any of her clothes, bed/pillow, hairbrush. Kids sharing same toothbrush is another discrepancy. Is this correct?
They shouldn't be collecting DNA for the case. That is the police job. That DNA should be cross-checked with 5A DNA to make sure it's a perfect match for Madeleine. Any DNA evidence is crucial to the case to know what may have happened to Madeleine.
Sorry I asked @)(++(*
I don't think she was disposed of into the sea. She was hidden somewhere on the cliff face. Look at the size of the people on the beach for comparison.Sometimes I wonder what idea people have of corpses, hidden in natural environment like caves or in artificial environment like freezers. In either case the removing perspective isn't bearable.
Sometimes I wonder what idea people have of corpses, hidden in natural environment like caves or in artificial environment like freezers. In either case the removing perspective isn't bearable.
Sometimes I wonder what idea people have of corpses, hidden in natural environment like caves or in artificial environment like freezers. In either case the removing perspective isn't bearable.
Twila said she found the body in a trash can and first hid it in a shed outside the house. About a day later she wrapped the body in a blanket and moved it to a cave along Route 11. She said she disposed of Ashley's bloody clothes and afterbirth at a state park campground.A newborn, no muscles, no rigor mortis.
"A lady from an apartment across Rua Dr Gentil Martins, overlooking our little side gate, came over to speak to us. She said that the previous night she had seen a car going up the Rocha Negra – the black, volcanic cliff that dominates the village. There was a track leading to the Rocha Negra but nobody remembered ever having noticed any vehicle that far up in the daytime, let alone at night. This immediately conjured visions of Madeleine being disposed of somewhere on the overhanging cliff. I went to tell one of the police officers who was able to speak a little English. He was quite dismissive. It would have been one of the GNR men checking the area, he said."
Nope I call it as I see it. I know what is possible and in that situation her walking past without being noticed isn't it. I'm wondering if she followed the back path around to the front which was her usual route so why would she change it? I'm now wondering if she came through the path in the middle of the apartment blocks and caught the man walking across the car park entrance in front of the apartments?What do you mean ?
Do you think you would leave your child's pram on the road or the pavement?Definitively on the pavement.
What do you mean ?
Ms Tanner either saw Smithman or Innocentman.
In either case she "adjusted" this sighting in order to orientate the PJ in the direction she thought was right. It was then extremely gentle from DCI RW not to force her to admit that.
I'm prone to think she saw Smithman though, because of this mental block on the face.
I think JT was getting her head filled with all sorts of information from the others such as what pyjamas Madeleine was wearing.I think Ms Tanner is an honest person. She wanted to help. She's easy to manipulate though, a documentary that shows it.
she (Silvia) knows that she (Jane) indicated that she saw him passing on the street that lies in front of the window to the bedroom where Madeleine was, walking into the direction of the street that leads to the Baptista supermarket.'This is Agostinho da Silva, but not crossing Francisco Gentil Martins.
I think Smithman moved her between 9-9.10pm towards the wasteland passing that front car park entrance (coming from the back/side gate) and later moved her again at 10pm.Oh yes, I remember, and you might be right. Then he took the path and after turning right turned left toward the G4 car park. But then Ms Tanner can't have seen him. In that case she saw Innocentman..
Oh yes, I remember, and you might be right. Then he took the path and after turning right turned left toward the G4 car park. But then Ms Tanner can't have seen him. In that case she saw Innocentman..
She may have seen him if she saw him passing Madeleine's front bedroom window/car park entrance going towards the wasteland. I wonder if she changed the direction due to other influences as one would know which direction he was seen going in and would want to change that at all costs 8)-))) If that was Smithman then he didn't use a bag.Oh I didn't read properly, instead I remembered your hypothesis of the flower bed and I assumed it was used for a while. The path route actually would be safer, since the path was very dark and nobody searched it, while the north route was risky.
walking into the direction of the street that leads to the Baptista supermarket (My note: towards wasteland)."No, it's not wasteland, it's Francisco Gentil Martins.
I think Ms Tanner is an honest person. She wanted to help. She's easy to manipulate though, a documentary that shows it.IMO she is a completely honest person.
Maybe she is honest but she didn't walk past Gerry and Jez on the same side of the road. That is impossible. If she's telling the truth of seeing Tannerman which I believe she is and he was heading towards Murat's than I believe that is not Smithman and he is an Innocent man as SY seem to think.As you reckoned she's rather easy to influence (see the "reconstruction") and a lot of pressure was on her. She for some reason thought she had to send the PJ away from the group and adjusted her sighting to the situation. She might have seen Innocentman when she went back to the Tapas at 21h20, but Mr McCann had left.
I need to check the path but there's balconies on that side and he could've been seen from above but I need to take a closer look. The trees are blocking the front way/pavement even though the road is open for possible eye witnesses. That's why I think a bag would be used for concealment going the pavement way towards the wasteland.The alley path was dark with a high wall on one side and vegetation on the other.
Before the new search a comprehensive geological survey, from air, land and sea, would be carried out. We found out only later (much later) that the UK team had been instructed by the PJ to proceed on the basis that Madeleine had been killed and her body dumped. They would be using GPR (ground-penetrating radar) for detecting ground disturbance, devices for penetrating walls and specialist dogs. The police files reveal that the NPIA were willing to assist with searches based on other suppositions but this had to be at the PJ’s request. Evidently there was no such request. No other theories were to be considered at this point, it seems.
This search, the second or maybe even the third over the same terrain, would encompass the land identified by Danie Krugel (it would later be extended to include both Robert Murat’s villa and apartment 5A at the Ocean Club). Although we didn’t, in our rational moments, set much store by his results, we were keen for this area to be checked just to make sure. And such a search didn’t necessarily mean turning up a body; it could reveal vital clues. By now we were more than familiar with cases where evidence had been missed the first time round and discovered on further searches (in one instance the UK police had told us about, a wallet sitting in a bush). At this stage, I was also still giving some credence to the information we were receiving from psychics, some of whom were suggesting that we should scour nearby territory again. Whatever everyone else’s reasons, we needed to be sure that everything had been done as meticulously and extensively as possible.
What's this wallet sitting in a bush reference about?
"After David left, Kate dressed and sat with the children, Madeleine on her lap. She was wearing a top, she doesn’t remember what colour it was, a green long-sleeved t-shirt, blue denim trousers. Sports shoes and white socks."
Wearing jeans?
"She says that the sofa (letter E) supposedly was against the side window, because she doesn’t remember anyone having gone behind it."
The crumpled curtain is unusual? Did the cleaner leave it like that or somebody else?
"Gerry was wearing blue denim trousers and sports shoes. She doesn’t remember what else he was wearing. She thinks that before she left she put on a cream coloured polar fleece with a zipper, and on top a blue raincoat, also with a zipper. Concerning Gerry, she doesn’t know if he put on any other clothing items."
Gerry was also wearing jeans?
Why are you worrying about whether or not they were wearing jeans?
Why are you worrying about whether or not they were wearing jeans?
He's a fashion guru.
Well said and here's my trouser fashion guru tips for Victoria
"He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut in a cotton type of cloth." (Martin Smith)
(http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7422/w7vv.jpg)
Don't let any dogs play with these as they like to bite and bark at them
(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/122/92o2.jpg)
(http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2451/lar4.jpg)
8@??)( What a brilliant observation, Benice. SY could benefit from you !
So why didn't Eddie alert to those items of clothing, or in fact any items of clothing, when he was searching the apartment where those items were in situ at the time he was conducting his search?
If he could detect a scent from an item inside a car which apparently, (according to Grime) - was coming out from the bottom of a closed sealed door - then detecting scent on clothing in drawers and cupboards should have been a walk in the park for him. Don't you agree?
.
Sealed ?
the bottom of a closed sealed door
Sealed ?Yep, of course it is sealed. If it weren't sealed, it wou;d let the rain in.
Yep, of course it is sealed. If it weren't sealed, it wou;d let the rain in.Sealed means airtight and watertight. Car doors in use aren't sealed.
Sealed means airtight and watertight. Car doors in use aren't sealed.
With respect Ann I think you are nitpicking. Grime uses the word 'seal' in his explanation of how Eddie came to alert at the car door.I don't think I'm "nitpicking", I was just referring to the definition of "sealed". I can't remember Mr Grime saying the car door was sealed, but it doesn't matter.
Car doors have rubber seals all round their interior to ensure the doors fit absolutely snugly when they are closed so that no water can get in. Common sense dictates that it will be more difficult for odour to escape from such a securely closed car - than from cupboards and drawers which have no seals whatsoever. But I'm sure you already know that.
So the question still remains - Why did Eddie fail to alert to the items of clothing which were present at the time of his search at the villa - but which he then later alerted to at the Gym after their removal by the PJ?
Benice, I'm not aware of a video or a description of Eddie being in the room where the items were kept and not alerting at all.
So the question still remains - Why did Eddie fail to alert to the items of clothing which were present at the time of his search at the villa - but which he then later alerted to at the Gym after their removal by the PJ?
I don't think I'm "nitpicking", I was just referring to the definition of "sealed". I can't remember Mr Grime saying the car door was sealed, but it doesn't matter.
What I know is that when a car falls into a river, water gets inside it mainly through the doors.
Well I'm at a loss to understand what your point is if you are not nitpicking?I do indeed agree with that.
To get back to the point - IMO if Eddie could detect a scent coming from inside a closed car which uses rubber seals to ensure the doors tightly fit when closed - then detecting scent coming from not one but several different items of clothing - even if they were in cupboards or drawers which have no seals at all - should have been a simple task for him? Don't you agree?
Madeleine is always a bundle of energy who never stops according to her parents and friends but on the day she goes missing she is so tired and worn out. Another discrepancy. Maybe she had a wonderfulspam spliff from the black rasta tracta man which knocked her out.
no...being on holiday wears kids out
What was the reason Gerry asked David to go to the apartment at 6.30? To take the kids out to play. Why would Gerry do this if he knew Madeleine was tired and worn out. I'm after reality not fantasy. I think Kate couldn't stand the sight of her husband that day with his flirting with women and his awful treatment of her the night before - the real reason she slept in the other bed. Maybe that's why Gerry sent David to go.
What was the reason Gerry asked David to go to the apartment at 6.30? To take the kids out to play. Why would Gerry do this if he knew Madeleine was tired and worn out. I'm after reality not fantasy. I think Kate couldn't stand the sight of her husband that day with his flirting with women and his awful treatment of her the night before - the real reason she slept in the other bed. Maybe that's why Gerry sent David to go.Somewhere in the statements there is your answer.
With respect Ann I think you are nitpicking. Grime uses the word 'seal' in his explanation of how Eddie came to alert at the car door.
Car doors have rubber seals all round their interior to ensure the doors fit absolutely snugly when they are closed so that no water can get in. Common sense dictates that it will be more difficult for odour to escape from such a securely closed car - than from cupboards and drawers which have no seals whatsoever. But I'm sure you already know that.
So the question still remains - Why did Eddie fail to alert to the items of clothing which were present at the time of his search at the villa - but which he then later alerted to at the Gym after their removal by the PJ?
Well said Benice those clothes would have been there wouldn't they, very odd.
Also very odd that the three articles of clothes alerted by Eddie were numbers 1,2 and 3 coming out of the box of clothing etc.
1. Kate's trousers
2. Kate's top
3. Small red t.shirt
All coming out of the box in that order
Somewhere in the statements there is your answer.
IIRC, Gerry asked Dave to go to see if Kate needed any help. It would be no easy job for Kate to bathe, and nappy and pyjama-ize three kids all aged 2 or 3, especially if one was especially tired and possibly cranky. Maybe he felt guilty, playing tennis when he usually helped?
I read nothing to indicate that Dave was to bring the children back to the playground, but I may have missed that.
Exactly and why was that brown stain mentioned. If Madeleine was found and that brown stain was discovered that could be very incriminating. I don't think Madeleine wanted to go to bed early and this opens up a can of worms. They will be looking at DP's visit at 6.30 to Gerry's return to the apartment at 7pm very closely.
It could be because we don't know what is was.
Why does us not knowing what it was make it incriminating?
If Madeleine was found and the stain was analysed and results came back as a some type of sedative then it would be incriminating.
"I reported my fears that all three children could have been sedated."
"But it is my belief there was somebody either in or trying to get into the children’s bedroom that night, and that is what disturbed them. The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a large, brown stain I noticed on Madeleine’s pink Eeyore pyjama top." (should have been in the Fantasy Land chapter)
If Madeleine was found and the stain was analysed and results came back as a some type of sedative then it would be incriminating.
"I reported my fears that all three children could have been sedated."
"But it is my belief there was somebody either in or trying to get into the children’s bedroom that night, and that is what disturbed them. The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a large, brown stain I noticed on Madeleine’s pink Eeyore pyjama top." (Fantasy Land chapter)
There's been plenty of shooting up BS in this case. No wonder Amaral got pissed off with Leicester police being big buddies with the McCann's. That kind of biased behaviour is not on in a missing child case with no evidence of abduction.
Exactly and why was that brown stain mentioned. If Madeleine was found and that brown stain was discovered that could be very incriminating. I don't think Madeleine wanted to go to bed early and this opens up a can of worms. They will be looking at DP's visit at 6.30 to Gerry's return to the apartment at 7pm very closely.Mrs Payne stated in the questionnaire to the LC that she went to the flat too.
If Madeleine was found and the stain was analysed and results came back as a some type of sedative then it would be incriminating.Could it be in case the supposed Amelie's Eeyore would be analysed for sedation ?
"I reported my fears that all three children could have been sedated."
"But it is my belief there was somebody either in or trying to get into the children’s bedroom that night, and that is what disturbed them. The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a large, brown stain I noticed on Madeleine’s pink Eeyore pyjama top." (Fantasy Land chapter)
Could it be in case the supposed Amelie's Eeyore would be analysed for sedation ?
What is absolutely sure is that a tea stain doesn't go off with normal soap and water.
What always amazed me is that Mrs McCann (said she) spent time on the 3rd morning removing a derisory stain on a pyjama instead of being on the beach to watch the sailing episode.
Common sense suggests that the stain episode at least didn't happen on that morning.
Besides, Mrs McCann (and Mr McCann as well) wasn't not capable to remember if the sailing was on the 2nd or the 3rd !
Mrs Payne stated in the questionnaire to the LC that she went to the flat too.
Yes why worry about a stain on clothes, you just shove them n the washng machine.....not wonder where and when they came from.....
I've read something about that but can't find it. What time was that at? Didn't Kate not let her in to the apartment?
Thanks I've just been reading her interview trying to find it but she says she never entered their apartment until after Madeleine had gone missing.
"I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to."
>@@(*&) How could she go to the apartment with Kate? The husband would be Gerry.
I've read something about that but can't find it. What time was that at? Didn't Kate not let her in to the apartment?edited because already answered.
This is a mysterious episode. Why isn't the answered questionnaire among the PJ Files ? The questionnaire very likely had a part concerning the Gaspar statements, because the LC PO who sent his attempt of analysis of the Payne answers sent it with the Gaspar statements.
The only way that would make any sense would be if David was looking after the kids and Kate went to fetch Fiona and they came back together to the apartment. This would probably be for one reason - an accident had happened to Madeleine. But then you're bringing more people being involved which I can't conclude at present. I would like to see the actual source of that statement.Unfortunately you'll never see it, it's in a box locked with seven keys at the LC.
Unfortunately you'll never see it, it's in a box locked with seven keys at the LC.
I'm pretty sure that Mrs Payne, if an accident happened to Madeleine, was kept ignorant of it. She would never have revealed that Mrs McCann told at dinner that the sliding door-window left open for Madeleine to walk out.
I wouldn't bet the same about Mr Payne.
Perhaps Mrs Payne pretended to have been with Mr Payne to protect him, because they were aware of the Gaspar statement when they answered the questionnaire.
Unfortunately you'll never see it, it's in a box locked with seven keys at the LC.
I'm pretty sure that Mrs Payne, if an accident happened to Madeleine, was kept ignorant of it. She would never have revealed that Mrs McCann told at dinner that the sliding door-window left open for Madeleine to walk out.
I wouldn't bet the same about Mr Payne.
Perhaps Mrs Payne pretended to have been with Mr Payne to protect him, because they were aware of the Gaspar statement when they answered the questionnaire.
This could, of course, be a complete fiction and no such conversation took place at that time.
That convo was stated in all three rgatory interviews of fiona jane and rachel though
This could, of course, be a complete fiction and no such conversation took place at that time.Why telling something that gives an image of irresponsible parents (at least Mr McCann).
Yes, but these statements were made long after the event and after the Rothley Towers summit.
I will have to read his full interview in fine detail but thinking about it gives me a sore head 8(0(*Any of those interviews gives you a sore head. The LC put it on the account of emotion. I don't think a Lee Rainbow would have.
Why telling something that gives an image of irresponsible parents (at least Mr McCann).
True....just more headache stuff isnt it.....there is somethng rotten in this case thats for sure....Mrs McCann wants the butter and the money for it. Haven't you noticed how she says "by the way it wasn't just me Madeleine was speaking to" ? Kind of schoolyard comment.
Oh and lets not forget those statements of kates mates contradict what she said in tv...that if maddie had not been abducted maddies comment that morning wouldnt have passed her mind agan...but it did...as she told those friends at dinner.....BEFORE she foundmaddie missing...how to explain that?.any "pros" want a stab?
Mrs McCann wants the butter and the money for it. Haven't you noticed how she says "by the way it wasn't just me Madeleine was speaking to" ? Kind of schoolyard comment.
So she needs a reason to state that she left the sliding door-window open (the crying episode), as if she had never done that (perhaps..) but altogether she doesn't like to be considered irresponsible after Madeleine told she knew she was left alone. Hence her attempts to suggest it was a passing remark.
Any of those interviews gives you a sore head. The LC put it on the account of emotion. I don't think a Lee Rainbow would have.
I've read something about that but can't find it. What time was that at? Didn't Kate not let her in to the apartment?Where have you got that from Pathfinder? I have read all the statements and cannot recall ever seeing that.
Mrs McCann wants the butter and the money for it. Haven't you noticed how she says "by the way it wasn't just me Madeleine was speaking to" ? Kind of schoolyard comment.Kate was very direct and honest. She told the PJ about the crying episode. She didn't have to come out with it, but she did.
So she needs a reason to state that she left the sliding door-window open (the crying episode), as if she had never done that (perhaps..) but altogether she doesn't like to be considered irresponsible after Madeleine told she knew she was left alone. Hence her attempts to suggest it was a passing remark.
Myths are dangerous things and become propagands if not controlled.
...and some Myths are controlled to become propaganda.How right you are. Myths are dangerous and should be avoided at all costs.
What is mysterious is why the gaspar statements were sent six months later but AT the request of the PJ? Who told the PJ these statements existed and so they asked for them? Six months later? The memo stated enclosed are the statements you requested or some such words.....The PJ knew the answered questionnaires of the Paynes when Ricardo Paiva received the attempted analysis of the LS PO. They likely learnt that the Gaspar statements existed through those questionnaires.
Surname: CARPENTER
First name. STEPHEN
At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table, which was so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them, we spoke of tennis amongst other things, I vaguely remember that Gerry and Kate and other people from the group would leave the table in intervals (inaudible), I think it was to check on the children , but I do not remember with what frequency or how many times the people left the table to check on the children.
Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home, we walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment, were we put the children to bed and a short while later did the same ourselves. I do not remember seeing or hearing anyone during our return to the apartment. When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I****. They were about six metres away from me and i calculate that some (inaudible) metres from the back of Gerry's apartment, I do not remember anything about these cars, it was normal for cars to be parked there and in the morning they were no longer there. My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the group were there at 8.30? 9pm when they all arrived. Times are all over the place as usual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jez Wilkins
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 this was Russell. They sat at the next table. We naturally engaged in conversation about everyday things. We spoke about childcare. At this time his wife was putting the children to bed. We found out that the group of families were using occupying ground floor flats near the swimming pool as they were leaving the children by themselves in order for them to go to the restaurant in the evening. They would then go regularly to check the children who would be asleep.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 May Kate putting the children to bed at 8pm?
3 May "It was around 7:15 p.m. when they put the children to bed and checked they were sleeping, she is sure of this." (KM 6 May)
This is nitpicking IMO. Gerry makes a general statement to explain where Kate is - but because he doesn't account for every minute of what Kate was doing back at the apartment - it is automatically assumed to be proof of 'something' sinister. What that 'something' is I don't know.Imo,, not at all.
'Putting the children to bed' could also include - having a shower afterwards, washing up, tidying up - all manner of stuff before she finally left the apartment. Does anyone really think it's odd that GM does not go into every minute detail of why Kate wasn't with him yet (which he probably didn't know anyway as he wasn't there) - but just explained her absence with one general remark. I certainly don't.
So what if the children went to bed later on the 2nd than they did on the 3rd? Why is that 'suspicious'.
Sadie, The discrepancy is the daily route changed on the day that she disappeared. You don't think that is not important? IMO Kate was in a bad mood that day (reason for sleeping in spare bed, the reason for the routine change, they never even went to the beach with the others, Madeleine wanted to go out and play as always) and she was planning to have it out with her husband when he returned from tennis at 7pm.
All supposition Pathfinder .... and very biased
As far as i am aware, before coming away, the Mccanns hardly knew quite a few of the peeps they holidayed with. And I am not at all sure that they followed the same routine as the others, day in and day out. Where did you get that from ?
As for Kate wanting to have it out with Gerry ! Jeez, you do have a vivid imagination
You are wrong pathfinder, by an hour !
Gerry talked with Jez at about 9.15 NOT 8.15
The children were in bed long before 8.30 when the Mccanns went to the Tapas restaurant. I am not wading tru the statements, but you are way out .... try and get your facts right .... cos wrong facts cause Myths and disinformation
And I feel sure that you wouldn't want to ne the source of any new propaganda, would you?
[You are wrong pathfinder, by an hour !
Gerry talked with Jez at about 9.15 NOT 8.15
The children were in bed long before 8.30 when the Mccanns went to the Tapas restaurant. I am not wading tru the statements, but you are way out .... try and get your facts right .... cos wrong facts cause Myths and disinformation]
What are you going on about? This was on WED 2 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 found out that Jerry was a cardiologist in a Hospital. At this time his wife was putting the children to bed." (Jeremy Wilkins)
All supposition Pathfinder .... and very biased
As far as i am aware, before coming away, the Mccanns hardly knew quite a few of the peeps they holidayed with. And I am not at all sure that they followed the same routine as the others, day in and day out. Where did you get that from ?
As for Kate wanting to have it out with Gerry ! Jeez, you do have a vivid imagination
Editted:
Deleted.
Sorry Pathfinder. My mistake.
I beg your pardon, pathfinder.
This is one of the problems of interruptions. I do not always get to read the run in as I would like.
I will delete the offending post
Sorry
That's ok Sadie and thank you. It's sometimes hard to keep up with all the posts.
Not sure about that. Gerry worked with all the other men and Kate & Fiona were best friends. The only one not really known was Fiona's mother
Jane Tanner had only met them about half a dozen times in her life - at weddings and birthday parties etc. She was Fiona's friend.
IIRC the Oldfields hadn't seen them for about 3 years before PdL.
Diane Webster only knew them as friends of her daughter.
So apart from the Paynes, the others were not close friends.
Compelling reasons IMO - why they would not dream of agreeing to take such massive risks with their own lives and particularly their own children's lives by agreeing to become 'Accessories' to such a serious crime of disposing of a child's body. Not a chance IMO.
If that were the case, I would agree with you.
However, they may have felt that they were potentially all deep in the shit regarding their child care arrangements and that they could avoid the fallout by being deliberately vague about the details of that evening. No suggestion of covering up a crime, just covering their own backs.
Jane Tanner had only met them about half a dozen times in her life - at weddings and birthday parties etc. She was Fiona's friend.I agree that the Paynes were the pivot of that group and the others acquaintances.
IIRC the Oldfields hadn't seen them for about 3 years before PdL.
Diane Webster only knew them as friends of her daughter.
So apart from the Paynes, the others were not close friends.
Compelling reasons IMO - why they would not dream of agreeing to take such massive risks with their own lives and particularly their own children's lives by agreeing to become 'Accessories' to such a serious crime of disposing of a child's body. Not a chance IMO.
No suggestion of covering up a crime, just covering their own backs.Covering their backs, certainly, and that's very human and understandable. At that point, at least, Tannerman had convinced them and it didn't occur to them that accuracy was needed.
With regard to the possible sighting of arguido Gerry McCann next to a pink coloured block of apartments at a site opposite the Luz cemetery, we can inform you that this an establishment called "St James Portuguesa Lda", lots 1 and 2 being situated in the positions mentioned, from the outside the spaces corresponding to Lot 1 can be seen of a total of apartment designated as follows: 101-104, 111-114, 121-124, 105-109, 115-119, 125-129.This sighting was not opposite the church, it was opposite the main cemetery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened in regards to this sighting opposite the church? Were all these apartments fully searched?
They got the keys to the church so maybe they got a key to an apartment. Why did you think it was a journalist and not an apartment resident? What date was it reported?By reading GA's book and various GA press interviews. He refers several times to a sighting at a block, the location is stated vaguely, he describes it usually as near the beach, or less often near the cemetery, (also getting quantity of people wrong). IMO all those mentions refer to this one sighting. In one of those sources GA says the witness was a journalist.
With regard to the possible sighting of arguido Gerry McCann next to a pink coloured block of apartments at a site opposite the Luz cemetery, we can inform you that this an establishment called "St James Portuguesa Lda", lots 1 and 2 being situated in the positions mentioned, from the outside the spaces corresponding to Lot 1 can be seen of a total of apartment designated as follows: 101-104, 111-114, 121-124, 105-109, 115-119, 125-129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened in regards to this sighting opposite the church? Were all these apartments fully searched?
In the dccb report it mentions they couldnt ascertain which apartments were of interest, so I guess no?
About 15th paragraph down
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DCCB_LETTER.htm
Michaelas ex husband used to manage the pools at the St James resort in PDL, whch Im assumng is the same place, and he doesnt look that different to GM, could be mistaken identity?
P1585
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUIS_ANTONIO.htm
That's an interesting connection. Be useful to know the original report date on the sighting?
Here's another interesting sighting:
Date: 2007-09-24
To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
From: Jorge Reis, Chief Inspector
Subject: Information relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
I hereby inform you that an individual identified as Fernando Joaquim, who resides behind the Parque do Campismo in Luz, who can be contacted on nº****** stated that during a weekend in July of this year he twice saw the father of the missing girl Madeleine McCann, heading towards a house called Vila D’Arte in the Melody Urbanisation, behind the camping site. He says that he does not know whether this situation is connected to the disappearance of the girl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. As concerns the information provided by F***** J**** with regard to a sighting of the McCanns at a residence called Vila d’Arte, in the Melody Urbanisation in Espiche, during the month of July, it was possible to determine which residence this was and that the building is the permanent residence of some citizens from NL or the UK for the past 4 or 5 years.
- As regards the sighting itself which occurred at 20.30 – 20.45 on dates that it was not possible to determine more than that this was in July of the current year and that the couple and their two youngest children were transported in small car, that the witness thought to be a dark coloured Citroen C3 or Renault Clio.
- Upon contacting the current inhabitants of the residence it was established that they were Dutch citizens who had made their reservation during the days 24-09-2007 and 29-09-2007 via the portucasa.nl website and who were from Amsterdam.
- The contract was signed through an intermediary from Winkworth who said that the McCanns never had any relationship with the residence in question because it was always let to friends or family members of the Dutch owners.
- The action of the intermediary was informal, there was no register of contracts with the occupants.
- The property is normally rented out, the owners do not live there on a permanent basis.
Thanks for the information Pegasus - that St. James apartment (101-129) sighting is very interesting.IMO id would be definite because a journo would by definition recognise his subject.
I found this interesting....
GA: Yes, before the dogs come to Portugal, there are signs of death as I say in the book, signs which are given by the family that a cadaver is being searched. This gentleman comes from South Africa, and hair from the little girl, supposedly from the little girl, he places it inside a machine which he invented and we hear its contents which says that there within a certain area of the beach lies a cadaver. So he came on the couple's request, otherwise he would not be requested. Then, the dogs' intervention follows a work of analysis, of planning carried out by a British national consultant, from the British police, he was here in Portugal, he saw the area, he consulted the process with what happened, therefore with facts that existed, he went to the area, he rode a helicopter, consulted with academics, and all that and he reached the conclusion that we have to search for a cadaver. In order to search for a cadaver these experts have to be used, these dogs and that was what happened. So from there on…##
That is one reason why i cant understand about the McCanns going for amaral and his book. They themselves must have thought their child had died surely?
They instigating the first searches for her body.
The thing about the lollipop too well words escape me.
Kate searching inside a big dumpster type bin less than 12 hours after she 'knew' she had been 'taken'.
She was hardly expecting to find her alive in there was she.
My first thought on this was that the looking in a large dumpster bin could be indicative that she thought Madeleine had got out and was hiding somewhere. But then when I thought about it again she wouldn't have been tall enough or strong enough to open it and climb in so I agree, she was looking for a child who had been dumped there. That doesn't make sense either since what sort of an idiot would abduct a child only to dump her nearby? For me that is a non starter.
It all reeks of pretence.
My first thought on this was that the looking in a large dumpster bin could be indicative that she thought Madeleine had got out and was hiding somewhere. But then when I thought about it again she wouldn't have been tall enough or strong enough to open it and climb in so I agree, she was looking for a child who had been dumped there. That doesn't make sense either since what sort of an idiot would abduct a child only to dump her nearby? For me that is a non starter.
It all reeks of pretence.
?{)(**
If she had been looking for a living Madeleine & for some reason thought that the interior of a bin was somewhere she was likely to be, she wouldn't be asking of God, "don't let her be in there".
No. They asked for the hunter with the hair device to be welcomed by the PJ.
They instigating the first searches for her body.
From DCCB report
".... e paraceu-lhe haver plantas novas na zona baixa do jardim ...."
BTW his witness is regarded an expert in his field.
"it seemed to him that there new plants at the bottom of the ....." is translation IMO just posting it as a strange statement by a witness reputed as discerning.
"it seemed to him that there new plants at the bottom of the ....." is translation IMO just posting it as a strange statement by a witness reputed as discerning.
You've been watching Secret Window 8)--)) Only kidding I read that but that was at the villa months later. If any employee was involved in Madeleine's disappearance I would check out the gardner's if they knew the patio door was always left open and flower bed scent.
'Gardener Suspects'
Gardeners often moonlight as child snatchers, It's like second nature to them.
When Burglar Bill & his friends have been eliminated, it'll be only natural to turn to the gardener suspects ?{)(**
Wasn't that the area that the cadaver dog alerted to ?This is a different property where k9 video indicates search restricted to indoors only.
This is a different property where k9 video indicates search restricted to indoors only.
Can someone please show me where this location is on a map of PDL? How far from the apartments? Thanks.It's far on top of the hill (at a roundabout).
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P7/07_VOLUME_VI1a_Page_1812.jpg)
Thanks Anne. Will see if I can locate the roundabout on google earth.It's easy, there's only one !
It's easy, there's only one !
Just had a quick look as it's situated to the north of the apartments I can't see any connection.The PJ found no connection, but they had to investigate, hadn't they ?
Smithman last seen heading in direction of church. Using the hypothesis of death re cadaver dog alerts - If Madeleine was disposed of in a bin or hidden then it was in this vicinity due to time constraints IMO.Dogs were brought over all these places.
Bin - disposed
Which one? Found a few big ones on Rua do Poco.
Rest are hidden possibilities but had to be moved again hours later (much riskier to attempt but can't exclude at present due to other factors):
Rocks, Roadworks, Building site, Sewer pipes, Tunnel.
Dogs were brought over all these places.
Thanks Eddie searched every part of the rocks area in front of church and the beach, building site. So the only ones not checked were roadworks that were finished by the time they came? Eddie? Did they go to the landfill sites?No handler would take his dog, whatever his speciality, to a landfill site. Too tiring. There's only one landfill in Barlavento ("side from which the wind blows", west of the Algarve), the other one being in Sotavento ("side towards which the wind blows, east of the Algarve).
Wasn't a blood found there?
Hit and run?
Few days ago I had a dream that the person who took Madeleine is called Maurizio :))))
No handler would take his dog, whatever his speciality, to a landfill site. Too tiring. There's only one landfill in Barlavento ("side from which the wind blows", west of the Algarve), the other one being in Sotavento ("side towards which the wind blows, east of the Algarve).
I've got the bin as first hiding place so in my hypothesis I'm not totally convinced Smithman would move to another bin further away. There's plenty of big bins just before he meets the Smiths if he wanted to do that - one thing is for sure - he wasn't staying on the streets looking for bins when people are now out searching with the added greater risk and probability of meeting more eye witnesses. Smithman knew exactly where he was going when last seen heading very quickly towards the church. It's just where that was? Whether he got the body inside, a bin or somewhere else he knew was very safe/buried.There are quite a few bins at the corner of the church. Now they're of the buried type, I'm not sure they were in 2007. This is a desert place at night, the proximity of the church, of the sea...
Can you elaborate on this, VIXTE?I was talking about the wall picture. Wall on the street..
An envelope containing six buccal swabs with samples, supposedly blood (Rua 25 de Abril nº 14, P da L).is next door to (west of) nº 12 (medical clinic)
Madeleine had a bath before going to sleep.. she would have her hair washed and would not be wearing a hairband
Well here's a nice contradiction for ya:
Before bathing the children and because it was early, they had thought of taking them to the recreation area, but then decided against this because of tiredness
Gerry who asked him (DP) to help Kate with taking the children to the recreation area, which had been arranged but did not take place. (KM)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So they decided together not to take the children out to play but then Gerry still sends DP over to take them out as arranged. That makes perfect sense 8-)(--)
Don't worry there's many contradictions about that 6.30-7pm period.
Maybe Gerry thought the children may have perked up - and so asked DP to call in on his way back to his own apartment to check - just in case Kate had changed her mind. It's no big deal is it?
Yes it is a big deal because that's when the daily routine changed for the first time that week due to Madeleine being worn out - well Gerry didn't think so or DP but don't get me started on the contradictions about that visit. That period stands out for any investigator.
Well here's a nice contradiction for ya:IIRC Gerry sent DP first. You have the order wrong. Gerry came back from tennis and they could see that they /Madeleine were too tired to go out to play and no doubt Kate had already decided that when DP was there earlier.
Before bathing the children and because it was early, they had thought of taking them to the recreation area, but then decided against this because of tiredness
Gerry who asked him (DP) to help Kate with taking the children to the recreation area, which had been arranged but did not take place. (KM)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So they decided together not to take the children out to play but then Gerry still sends DP over to take them out as arranged. That makes perfect sense 8-)(--)
Don't worry there's many contradictions about that 6.30-7pm period.
One thing I've just seen in Kate's book that I don't remember ever seeing before:
"4 May
A lady from an apartment across Rua Dr Gentil Martins, overlooking our little side gate, came over to speak to us. She said that the previous night she had seen a car going up the Rocha Negra - the black, volcanic cliff that dominates the village. There was a track leading to Rocha Negra, but nobody noticed any vehicle that far up in the day time, let alone in night..... I went to tell one of the police officers who was able to speak a little English. He was quite dissmissive. It would have been one of GNR men checking the area, he said."
"4 MayIn the files there is no statement by this lady.
A lady from an apartment across Rua Dr Gentil Martins, overlooking our little side gate, came over to speak to us. She said that the previous night she had seen a car going up the Rocha Negra - the black, volcanic cliff that dominates the village. There was a track leading to Rocha Negra, but nobody noticed any vehicle that far up in the day time, let alone in night..... I went to tell one of the police officers who was able to speak a little English. He was quite dissmissive. It would have been one of GNR men checking the area, he said."
Reply to Vixte's post re KM bookIn the files there is no statement by this lady.
Maybe police should even now find (easy because name is in files) and ask this lady exactly what time she saw the vehicle on the big hill?
This lady had visitors who left at 21:58 so has a good reference timepoint and therefore will certainly be able to remember when she saw the vehicle on the big hill with good accuracy. After 21:58 ? Or before 21:58 ?
Reply to Vixte's post re KM bookIn the files there is no statement by this lady.Where please, Pegasus ?
Maybe police should even now find (easy because name is in files) and ask this lady exactly what time she saw the vehicle on the big hill?
This lady had visitors who left at 21:58 exactly so has a good reference timepoint and therefore will certainly be able to remember when she saw the vehicle on the big hill with good accuracy. After 21:58 ? Or before 21:58 ?
Has she described the car, i.e. small, big, black, white?She would have seen only the vehicle lights.
She would have seen only the vehicle lights.
In my humble opinion peeps are making a mistake thinking everything which that source (who told us for example about the lady seeing the car on the hill) says in statements, in book, and in diary, as lies and diversions. IMO it is the opposite and this is an honest and innocent source.
Why would that be suspicious if at all? .......The witness MMH thought it significant/unusual enough to report.
The witness MMH thought it significant/unusual enough to report.
Only the west slopes of that big hill are visible from town, and on the visible parts.were only dirt tracks.
The witness MMH thought it significant/unusual enough to report.
Only the west slopes of that big hill are visible from town, and on the visible parts.were only dirt tracks.
Problem is that when people start trying to help they can start imagining they saw significant things (I know this myself from major incidents years ago).True but the job of police is to accurately collect all those bits and examine them just in case a few are relevant.
Problem is that when people start trying to help they can start imagining they saw significant things (I know this myself from major incidents years ago).
Sometimes these most helpful are the most suspicious.. not saying it about this lady but in general.. I remember a case where I was present when the police came and I overheard a policeman saying 'Who was the first person to report it? Please check him out!' This is why sometimes people even don't want to report stuff..
Sometimes these most helpful are the most suspicious.. not saying it about this lady but in general.. I remember a case where I was present when the police came and I overheard a policeman saying 'Who was the first person to report it? Please check him out!' This is why sometimes people even don't want to report stuff..In some cases it happens that one of the first peeps to report an incident turns out later to be the perp and the recent Croydon case would be an example. However it is unscientific to adopt that as a general guideline.
It would be easy for the current SY investigation to askEvery day you write, about some point, "it would be easy for the current SY..." I wish I knew why ? Do you think that DCI Redwood reads this forum ?
Every day you write, about some point, "it would be easy for the current SY..." I wish I knew why ? Do you think that DCI Redwood reads this forum ?IMO SY do not look at forums.
IMO SY do not look at forums.Then why do you suggest here diligences for SY ?
Then why do you suggest here diligences for SY ?On which road do you think that open manhole was?
On which road do you think that open manhole was?Don't know, but I've read that the manholes manager had checked and checked again.
Don't know, but I've read that the manholes manager had checked and checked againGood point, I think that organisation said there were two open trenches and locations IIRC are in files.
....
If a child went outside to the street alone and not in panic I would expect shoes to be put on. But reportedly shoes were not missing..ly
"Whilst in the villa, a gardener would arrive every week or about every 15 days. This was organized by the estate agency. The gardener would leave black rubbish bags near the gate, and on at least one occasion, I used the vehicle to remove these bags. The collection of rubbish in Portugal is not made as it is in the U.K., and for this reason, it was necessary to take the rubbish to a tip (disposal area) which was called 'recycling area' near the back of the Ocean Club. I used the Renault Scenic for this reason on many occasions." (Sandy Cameron)All I know are 3 types of recycle containers, one for glass, one for plastic and metal and
Is this gardener in the files? What's his name? Where is that recycling area? Thanks.
Is this gardener in the files?Yes DCCB report
Where is that recycling area?Not sure maybe this one? R.Ramalhete, block 4 is in background
What about the recycling area photo, I did not give a full map link, is that ok?Well you werent helpful to me by saying "DCCB gardener report"
By answering two questions raised by another poster, I imagined I was being helpful 8((()*/
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DCCB_LETTER.htm
BTW duckduckgo.com is a search engine, no login required, just like google or bing but without tracking profiling etc.
Strange that both tennis coach statements end with the same comments. Could they have been coached? 8)-)))
Strange that both tennis coach statements end with the same comments. Could they have been coached? 8)-)))They are third party John. They are not verbatim.
"During our stay in Majorca, Dave and his wife, Fiona, accompanied by their daughter L., took Madeleine with them to spend the day, in order to give Kate and Gerry a bit of rest and time to be with the twins. When I say this, it is not that I was worried about Madeleine's safety, since she was also with Fiona and L., and also with Dave, as far as I know. The first time I heard of the terrible news about Madeleine's disappearance through the radio, my thoughts went immediately to Dave."
KATHERINA ZACHARIAS GASPAR
They needed time away from Madeleine for a rest? And her mother doesn't watch her sailing for the first time on the morning of the day that she disappeared because she would rather clean a brown stain. Somebody else will be investigated >@@(*&)
Good catch, Pathfinder. I found this weird too.
"During our stay in Majorca, Dave and his wife, Fiona, accompanied by their daughter L., took Madeleine with them to spend the day, in order to give Kate and Gerry a bit of rest and time to be with the twins. When I say this, it is not that I was worried about Madeleine's safety, since she was also with Fiona and L., and also with Dave, as far as I know. The first time I heard of the terrible news about Madeleine's disappearance through the radio, my thoughts went immediately to Dave."
KATHERINA ZACHARIAS GASPAR
They needed time away from Madeleine for a rest? And her mother doesn't watch her sailing for the first time on the morning of the day that she disappeared because she would rather clean a brown stain. Somebody else will be investigated >@@(*&)
I find nothing odd about this at all.
It is certain Madeleine would be having fun with another little girl which both children probably enjoyed very much and would certainly be socially beneficial for both. I don't know, but in my experience it was probably a reciprocal arrangement.
Either you have no experience of having two babies and a very energetic toddler to contend with and the co-operation and camaraderie of other parents to lighten the load a little ~ or you are taking an innocent statement and putting a connotation on it which was not intended.
A mother would also rather wash out a stain than go and watch her daughter sailing for the first time. I can conclude that the brown stain was more important >@@(*&)
Are there any photos of Kate in PDL before 3 May? I've seen a few photos of Gerry and the kids - one at the play area but none of Kate. I find it strange that on holiday with a camera no family photos all together were taken or Gerry not taking one of Kate with the kids.
Apensos 5, Volume 1, Page 131
"In my original statement I described a distressed female who ran down a road towards a white van I had described.
Having viewed recent news footage of Mrs McCann I am now almost certain that she is the female I described as being in a distressed state. I say this because of her slight build, high cheekbones and her eyes and hairstyle."
Sounds convincing right? Direct facial recognition. Cheekbones, eyes, hairstyle, build.
How could the witness be mistaken, with that amount of detail seen?
Problem is: The witness was mistaken, the identification was incorrect.
It's in Sept 6 interview. Get reading.
Yes thankyou, I am already familiar with that statement.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
The source I asked for a cite to is the one which you suggest that Dr McCann was more interested in removing stains than in her daughter.
“A mother would also rather wash out a stain than go and watch her daughter sailing for the first time. I can conclude that the brown stain was more important”
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2705.msg155293#msg155293
Perhaps you would be kind enough to direct me to that one.
"on Thursday, 3rd of May 2007, around 10H30 in the morning, where she cried at the launch of the yellow safety boat in the ocean where all the children were sailing. She was scared and fearful and cried on my lap "I am scared, I am scared." (Cat Baker)
If you read what her mother was doing instead: she was lying around the pool talking and cleaning that stain instead of walking 5 minutes to the beach and watching her daughter sailing for the first time.
"When her lesson ended at 10:15, she went to the recreation area next to the swimming pool to talk to Russell until Gerry's lesson was over. She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning."
What a load of rubbish...maddie wasn't sailing...she was in a small boat by the sound of things. You seem to be running out of things to criticse the mccanns forThe children wearing lifejackets and helmets were taken from the beach in a small inflatable dinghy and then transferred just offshore into a sailing catamaran for a sail along the coast.
The children wearing lifejackets and helmets were taken from the beach in a small inflatable dinghy and then transferred just offshore into a sailing catamaran for a sail along the coast.
do we know if the parents of the other children were on the beach to watch them sailing??
Who says they didn't take any?
"On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane." (Cat Baker)Thanks for this pathfinder. However what i understand is that jane wasnt on beach for watching her daughter Ella sailing. Dave and Fiona told her about this. Maybe the parents didnt know about kind's club programme.
" Erm, you know, walking down to the beach, so Russell, me and Evie walked down to the beach. I don’t know, I don’t know what Kate did then (inaudible) but I don’t know where Kate went at that point (Cleaning a large brown stain - PF), but she didn’t come to the beach with us. Erm, we, I think we met Dave and Fi coming back, because they’d had their second, I think they’d had their second sailing lesson, erm, which Russell should have gone to but he didn’t because of looking after Evie, because I’d paid for the tennis lesson but he hadn’t paid for the sailing lesson we thought I’d do the tennis lesson”.
4078 “Because it was paid?”
Reply “Yeah, erm, I think we met Dave and Fi coming back and they said they’d seen Madeleine and Ella on a boat, because they’d taken the kids sailing that morning, so they said ‘Oh we’ve seen Madeleine and Ella on a boat down there’. So then we went down to the beach, erm, and Russell took out a kayak and I sat and just played on the beach with Evie at that point. And we saw, erm, they’d come off the boat and we saw Ella and Madeleine and the rest of the group, they were just, erm, they’d just come off the boat and they were getting ready to walk back up to the, erm, tut, the Kids Club, so”.
4078 “What was the weather like at that time when you remember seeing Madeleine on the beach then?”
Reply “Erm, I think that day was a bit nicer actually. I think, I’m trying to, I’ve got pictures of Ella, of Evie, that’s about the first day I took pictures actually, and I’ve got pictures of Evie and I’m trying to remember what she was wearing. It was a tee-shirt, so I don’t think it was, it wasn’t as, I think it was actually getting a bit nicer, it wasn’t as cold. No, yeah, because the Thursday was actually probably one of the first nice days, which is why I think we had gone later in the day, we took all the kids down to the beach because it was actually nicer weather. So, yeah, the Thursday was probably the first day I think the sun had more come out in the day”.
I think we played ‘til about, phew, half two, because I think, I’m not sure if this is going to be another question that you are going to ask, but I think that was the last time that I saw Madeleine, because Kate and Gerry brought the kids, all the kids down to the play area to, they would have their lunch before they took them back to the Kids Club, and I think that was about two, quarter past two’ish, and I can remember Madeleine shouting things to us on the tennis court, you know, and I can remember Gerry sort of going ‘Oh good shot’ or whatever. And I think that would have been the last time that I personally, you know, I personally saw Madeleine."
(Jane Tanner Rog)
"I mean, that day we had been sailing, I think we were supposed to be doing wind surfing, but that day the, as I say, the waves were too rough and we ended up, Dave and I, taking out a boat together. And, and that morning I think Matt came out as well and he was on a separate boat, I remember we were joking around with him quite a lot. And then we were drenched and really wet and really cold, so I think we actually came back to the apartment to get, you know, more clothes because were cold and hadn't taken enough with us. Erm, and then, so that would have been, I don't know, eleven, half eleven, that we were back at the apartment. And then sat, erm, on, by the pool for a bit with Dave and then we saw Kate and Gerry and we just sat and had a chat with them. And then it was time to pick up the kids, so Kate and I walked from the Tapas area over to the main reception, going between, you know, there was a sort of path that went between the other Ocean Club complex as well along the road, erm, and she picked up Madeleine and I picked up Scarlet and then we walked back together and that was the only day we ever did, ever did that. Erm, and then when we got back they, you know, Kate too Madeleine to their apartment for lunch and, erm, I went up to ours for lunch." (Fiona Payne)
Thanks for this pathfinder. However what i understand is that jane wasnt on beach for watching her daughter Ella sailing. Dave and Fiona told her about this. Maybe the parents didnt know about kind's club programme.
They would know they were sailing for the first time that morning. Lounge around the pool or see your daughter. This is very insightful.
well not really.
Their attitude was already clear.
Go out on the cans every night, stick the kids in the creche every day.
This is not news.
Read Kate's book.
Not once does she describe Madeleine.
She describes photos of her, but not the actual child herself. We don't know if she liked to draw, or loved animals, what her first words were or something funny or unique that she brought to the world.
All we get is generic junk, not a heartbroken mother appealing to the world how precious and special her missing baby is.
Mind you, if she felt that way, she wouldn't have gone out night after night and left them alone.
Some cite?
They would know they were sailing for the first time that morning.Actually in the schedule it was listed for Wed AM, but the sea was slightly rough that day, so it got rescheduled to Thu AM.
Actually in the schedule it was listed for Wed AM, but the sea was slightly rough that day, so it got rescheduled to Thu AM.
They would know they were sailing for the first time that morning. Lounge around the pool or see your daughter. This is very insightful.Yep, go and watch them .... very important NOT
Mostly sms imo, and have you considered this might be the txts of an innocent person to/from for example a religious person in uk?
The police will know and draw their conclusions accordingly.
they already have...mccanns not suspects
'Snatcher' lives only 500 yards from flat
'Answer to Maddie kidnap lies yards from flat'
27 May 2009
Nick Fagge in Aachen and Martin Evans in Praia da Luz
THE key to solving Madeleine McCann’s disappearance may lie within 500 yards of her family’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, investigators believe. The hunt for the missing youngster has dramatically switched back to Portugal, where investigators last night said they were focusing their probe on a predatory paedophile still living in the area.
Which investigators are these, I wonder?At that date, Alpha presumably
... Is this a defence book? ...You throwing in your bin a valuable truthful innocent source IMO.
You throwing in your bin a valuable truthful innocent source IMO.
I kept picturing her in her short-sleeved Marks and Spencer Eeyore pyjamas and feeling how chilled she would be. Bizarrely, I found myself thinking it would have been better if she’d been wearing her long-sleeved Barbie ones.I think KM is an honest witness.
She also had a light top, with long sleeves - Aoife Smith
I think KM is an honest witness.
To make your exact theory work seems to require that an extraordinary quantity of people are lying - so many that I think you are not able even to give a number so I can only guess - maybe 10 ?
Have you ever considered that this might be a small clue perhaps, as to whether your exact theory is correct or not?
Supply an alternative solution mine covers every discrepancy and the dog alerts. Everyone involved - I don't think so. I'm interested from when Madeleine arrived at 5A for the last time at 5:40 onwards so are the 3 people who saw her from this time telling the truth. The other details may reveal their states of mind at the time e.g. sleeping in spare bed, was there trouble with the relationship, the series of phone calls by Kate probably related to Gerry's flirting with the quiz girl, leaving Kate to do all the work on her own with 3 kids whilst he's playing tennis etc. Gerry out with Russ the previous night according to Jez leaving Kate to take care of the kids on her own etc. Gerry sent DP over maybe he knew Kate didn't want to see him and called him an ffin tosser when he went out at 6. If Madeleine had a sleeping problem, she could throw a bad tantrum by family accounts. Crying for her daddy etc. Was Kate having problems with Madeleine at the time. The DP visit has a lot of contradictions and this is most likely where the answer lies.Oh I thought your total was higher than 3?
Supply an alternative solution mine covers every discrepancy and the dog alerts. Everyone involved - I don't think so. I'm interested from when Madeleine arrived at 5A for the last time at 5:40 onwards so are the 3 people who saw her from this time telling the truth. The other details may reveal their states of mind at the time e.g. sleeping in spare bed, was there trouble with the relationship, the series of phone calls by Kate probably related to Gerry's flirting with the quiz girl, leaving Kate to do all the work on her own with 3 kids whilst he's playing tennis etc. Gerry out with Russ the previous night according to Jez leaving Kate to take care of the kids on her own etc. Gerry sent DP over maybe he knew Kate didn't want to see him and called him an ffin tosser when he went out at 6. If Madeleine had a sleeping problem, she could throw a bad tantrum by family accounts. Crying for her daddy etc. Was Kate having problems with Madeleine at the time. The DP visit has a lot of contradictions and this is most likely where the answer lies.Surely your theory relies on JT being "in on it" too?
Surely your theory relies on JT being "in on it" too?
Oh I thought your total was higher than 3?
Even that is a unrealistic high amount IMO in any case of this type.
Or possibly Dr Amaral's thoughts about this witness were not too far wide of the mark?What thoughts were those Les?
It is in here somewhere Alfie.Frankly Trying to find out what Amaral thought of JT is really not worth the time and effort to trawl through that lot but thanks anyway.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/
Frankly Trying to find out what Amaral thought of JT is really not worth the time and effort to trawl through that lot but thanks anyway.
It was a definite 2 possibly 3.Only about three peeps in the world have ever posted the correct quantity.
I have been wondering about something GM said on the Crimewatch programme last year. Asked about the day Madeleine was born he said "she was almost perfectly formed'. What did he mean by "almost"? Was she born premature does anyone know?
"Almost perfectly formed"?... words just fail me-imagine saying that about your daughter on national TV.
She is an adorable, sweet looking girl in her pictures!
IMO He thought she was a credible enough witness to arrange for her to attend the Identity parade re Robert Murat.
Her credibililty became 'inconvenient' to him only after he decided it was the McCanns wot dunnit - then imo he did everything he could to discredit her as a credible witness and has carried on lying about her ever since - especially in his 'nodding donkey' interviews IIRC.
Gerry McCann discredited Tanner, Oakley discredited Tanner. In fact it would be hard to find anyone associated with this case who didn't discredit Tanner.
SY believe her. As they are the experts - that's good enough for me.
Experts in the Barry George case ?
when will you understand the judicial process...it was the court...not the detectives who found barry George guilty...
unlike portugal where the mccanns have been found guilty by the detectives
Some excerpts from the Silvia Barista's statements ...The lady described as dark-skinned is RO, who first informed GNR about JT's sighting.
"At a certain point the deponent translated a statement from one of the ladies of the English
group, the lady she indicated as being dark-skinned. This lady said to the police officers, and the
deponent translated, that she had seen a man walking [passing] in the street, possibly with a child
in his arms.
...we went out on the Wednesday ...Precisely, exactly as I said, they definitely did not hear crying and see couple on Tue nite.
Precisely, exactly as I said, they definitely did not hear crying and see couple on Tue nite.How do you work that out? It they were out on WED they might have been in on TUE and heard crying and saw couple. Rachel was next door and heard no crying on WED at McCann level volume which is very loud.
I think heard they heard crying and saw couple on Wed nite.
How do you work that out? It they were out on WED they might have been in on TUE and heard crying and saw couple.They "went out" (travelled from England to Portugal) on the Wed (2nd)
SM: Yeah, we went out on the Wednesday; the day before.and please read the rest of that sentence ... about how long they stayed out?
Where are you getting this info about seeing a couple?Unusually this is one UK newspaper article claiming to have new information which I took seriously, but only because it fitted very well with some things I had already worked out re Wed nite.
... and reading between the lines, if true, seems odd it didn't enter the investigation earlier, as it's clear the witnesses would have reported it ages ago, to some part or other of the investigation in the broad sense, anyway main thing is SY seem to have retrieved any such stuff now.
Gerry said David Payne went in on WED to check on the children. David Payne said he never.First just pointing out that if you place the crying (and it ceasing when some adults get there) on Tue (and not on Wed which is when I think it was), that whole article would be rubbish, because those witnesses were not even in Portugal on Tue.
I believe Rachel would have heard the kids crying next door on WED but she didn't. Fenn heard it on TUE as in her statement.Witnesses mentioned in article were not even in PDL on Tue, so the article is of no value to your Tue theory.
Witnesses mentioned in article were not even in PDL on Tue, so the article is of no value to your Tue theory.
From article: "It is already known that Pamela Fenn, who lived directly above apartment 5a, heard a child, believed to be Madeleine, crying for about an hour on the evening of May 2."http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400796/Mystery-couple-seen-going-into-McCanns-flat-on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared
That is not correct. Pamela Fenn said May 1.
Sean and Madeleine were both crying according to the McCanns. The kids room was next door to Rachel's bedroom. She would have heard them both crying on WED as she stayed in but that didn't happen. If that article got Fenn's date wrong then why should I believe the rest of it is correct.http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400796/Mystery-couple-seen-going-into-McCanns-flat-on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared
'SY have said they are not giving a running commentary on the case. '......
A BRITISH woman has told Scotland Yard detectives seeking Madeleine McCann that she overheard a conversation in which a man said: "Why did you bring her here? Now we will have to dispose of the body."
The potential key witness has been interviewed several times in Britain and used to live almost opposite apartment 5a of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz on the Algarve, from where Madeleine, three, was taken on May 3, 2007.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/488487/EXCLUSIVE-Potential-key-witness-McCann-case
Now, can anyone find a press report on the re-interviewing of the McCanns & their friends?
No, that's right, you can't, there aren't any, because they haven't been.
Apparently it was the talk of twitter at the time, I would have thought you might remember that, because the speculation was apparently rampant.
Beyond comprehension why it would be assumed this was any thing other than a legitimate and necessary part of the process which would enable Madeleine's case to be reopened.
You can be rest assured that the Drs McCann were also part of this process.
Madeleine McCann detectives to call in Tapas 7
SCOTLAND YARD detectives are poised to interview the so-called Tapas Seven as their inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann steps up a gear.
The friends of Kate and Gerry McCann, who accompanied them on their holiday to Portugal almost five years ago, are expecting interview requests as soon as officers feel they could assist the investigation.
So far, the Yard’s Maddie Squad has been concentrating on analysing every scrap of evidence in the case from files supplied by Leicestershire police, Portuguese detectives and Metodo 3, the Barcelona-based private investigators hired by the McCanns.
Officers have flown to Portugal three times and visited Spain twice.
With much of the analysis over, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood wants to put his team of three detective chief inspectors, five detective sergeants and 19 detective constables to good use.
They are being supported by six civilian staff and three officers from the specialist murder review group, bringing the total number on the team to 37.
By April the cost of the inquiry will be £1.9million but it is thought that figure could double with the “investigative review” going into next year.
After nine months of information gathering, officers are checking statements from key witnesses.
They include the Tapas Seven, so called because they were eating at a tapas bar with Kate and Gerry at the time Madeleine disappeared.
In some cases the Yard officers have asked for documents to be retranslated from Portuguese to English so that they are absolutely sure of what was said and meant.
One theory they are examining is that if someone abducted Madeleine they could have had a copy of the key for the holiday apartment at the Ocean Club in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz.
The Sunday Express has learned that the Tapas Seven “fully expect” to be asked to go over the statements they made to Portuguese officers shortly after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.
They were also interviewed by Leicestershire detectives, with Portuguese officers in attendance, when they arrived home.
The most significant witness is mother-of-two Jane Tanner, partner of doctor Russell O’Brien, who said she saw a man carrying a child resembling Madeleine some time after 9pm.
Another key witness is Matthew Oldfield, who went to the apartment to check on Madeleine and twins Sean and Amelie, who celebrated their seventh birthdays last week.
Mr Oldfield saw the twins in their cot but did not push the door open wide enough to see Madeleine, although he was happy all was well.
All the Tapas Seven fully support the Yard’s review of the case and hope it will provide a breakthrough.
Other members of the group include Mr Oldfield’s wife Rachael, David and Fiona Payne and her mother Dianne Webster.
A Yard spokesman declined to say who would be interviewed and when. “We are not going into that level of details,” he said. “We are not at the stage of speaking to individuals yet. We are laying the groundwork.”
The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said they and their friends would do everything to assist attempts to discover what happened to Madeleine.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/300185/Madeleine-McCann-detectives-to-call-in-Tapas-7
You can be rest assured that the Drs McCann were also part of this process.
Really?
Because an Express article said, once upon a time, that the McCanns are expecting to be re-interviewed?
'Another key witness is Matthew Oldfield, who went to the apartment to check on Madeleine and twins Sean and Amelie'
'Mr Oldfield saw the twins in their cot but did not push the door open wide enough to see Madeleine'
I wonder if Mr Oldfield managed to remember if the bedroom window was closed or open, or, indeed, just how many windows there were?
Of course they would all be interviewed ... and thoroughly.
That would be virtually the first step. It goes without saying
I remember going into Kate and Gerry’s err bedroom with Gerry and he’d perhaps you know fling a cupboard open and just have a look and, ah you know and just shut the door and you know in a vein, desperate hope that she might have been err you know in, in the wardrobe or something, and then he, you know flung him, flung himself on the floor and just you know kicking the floor and just with, you know, she’s gone, she’s goneIs this the only specific reference to someone opening and closing one of the doors of the south bedroom wardrobe?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id251.htmlIs this the only specific reference to someone opening and closing one of the doors of the south bedroom wardrobe?
... all within about fifteen seconds ...15 seconds is far from a complete search. BTW no search behind sofa is mentioned.
15 seconds is far from a complete search. BTW no search behind sofa is mentioned.
I thought the cot was blocking the kids wardrobe?Who says that pfinder?
Who says that pfinder?
The photos but on reflection you could probably open the door a tiny bit to have a look inside so it's possible IMO. But it's awkward unless you moved the cot.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/maddiebedroom4.jpg)
Logic would dictate that if the cot was blocking the door Madeleine could not have been inside.
You would think so but Kate said she checked inside.
"I checked the wardrobe in the children’s room." (Madeleine)
I think the clue is on the end of the cot, don't you? The cots in the pictures have been stripped of bedding & are probably not in the exact positions they were at 10pm.
Those were the crime scene photos. Why would you move a cot to take a child out?
"the bed sheets on the twins' cots were not there." (TOTL)
Those were the crime scene photos. Why would you move a cot to take a child out?
"the bed sheets on the twins' cots were not there." (TOTL)
Logic would dictate that if the cot was blocking the door Madeleine could not have been inside.
The right-hand cot would have had to have been moved to gain access to the window without disturbing the bed underneath. I'm not sure exactly where it was positioned when Kate entered the room at around 10pm, but she doesn't say she had to move it to check the wardrobe.
Poignantly, I can see where Madeleine's legs had lain under the covers in that photo, unless it's a trick of the light.
There was a gap between the cots for Kate to access the bed by the window. She slept in it the night before and didn't need to access the window that was always shut. And now you're claiming they're further tampering with the crime scene by moving cots before the police arrive. You can move between the cots and the bed to access the window. Now you know why I don't think an abductor would risk going to the window in the dark in case he left vital clues or woke the twins and then opened noisy shutters 8-)(--) More importantly wasting time! How anyone can not think it's strange and unlikely beats me.
Unanswered questions:
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'
I'm not claiming they tampered with the crime scene. I am merely saying that many people were in & out of that room before those photos were taken by CSI. The shutters were tested. Kate closed the window. How on earth you can categorically state that everything in that photo is eactly as Kate found it is silly - the cots have been stripped for starters. Or are you merely insinuating that Kate was lying about checking inside the wardrobe because she couldn't access it due to the position of the cots as shown in the photo?
I don't think for one minute an abductor went in or out of that window, with or without Madeleine. The window & shutters were opened from the inside for another purpose.
I'm not claiming they tampered with the crime scene. I am merely saying that many people were in & out of that room before those photos were taken by CSI. The shutters were tested. Kate closed the window. How on earth you can categorically state that everything in that photo is eactly as Kate found it is silly - the cots have been stripped for starters. Or are you merely insinuating that Kate was lying about checking inside the wardrobe because she couldn't access it due to the position of the cots as shown in the photo?
I don't think for one minute an abductor went in or out of that window, with or without Madeleine. The window & shutters were opened from the inside for another purpose.
What nonsense. He had 2 doors to use if he existed. But he thought no I'll waste time and open noisy shutters 8-)(--)
I believe that Madeleine will not be found, dead or alive, until someone talks. I base that on the fact that a book deal was signed, safe in the knowledge that she would not turn up, dead or alive.
The dogs' evidence was significant on 2 counts:-
1) It indicated the likelihood she was dead.
2) It provided part of the circumstancial evidence which was being gathered to use in a case against the parents, which would "solve" the crime, restore reputations & calm tourists anxieties.
All in all, quite a few Brownie points to be won and a lot of fame & good fortune for a few individuals. That is, until the walls came crashing down in a UK lab.....
Now, here are another set of discrepancies:_
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HAYLEY-CRAWFORD.htm
When asked, she states that she does now know the parents nor Madeleine as they did not frequent the adult pool bar.
When asked, the witness clarifies that on the day of Madeleine’s disappearance (03 May 2007) she was with her boyfriend at her home, situated in Lagos, saying that he, Nuno Conceicao, is also an Ocean Club employee, carrying out various maintenance functions in the resort But she says that, for this reason, her boyfriend is in permanent service, in other words that even when he has a day off he can be contacted in case it is necessary to carry out any type of maintenance service in any apartment or other installations of the tourist resort in question. In this way she explains that on the day in question (03.05.07) at around 20h30, her boyfriend was called as there was a problem with a lock in an apartment situated in the northern part of the resort, close to the Millennium restaurant and she had accompanied her boyfriend in her car from her home in Lagos to the apartment in question.
For this purpose, the witness and her boyfriend travelled in her car, a Peugeot model 106, metallic grey in colour, along various roads of the resort, having taken the road adjacent to the pool and Tapas restaurant area, passing by the apartment where Madeleine and her family were staying, according to what she was subsequently informed about the location.
When questioned, the witness states that when she travelled along the roads in question, which make up the resort, and principally those which she later learnt were adjacent to the apartment where Madeleine was staying and disappeared from, close to the Tapas restaurant, which she did at about 21H00, (03 May, 2007) the witness states that she saw no vehicle, person or other situation that she considered suspicious that could be directly or indirectly related to the facts being investigated.
When asked, the witness states that after her boyfriend had collected a service vehicle, from the Ocean Club reception, which took place at about 21H00, they both went to her home, but in separate vehicles, arriving at about 21H15.
The witness states that she was off work on last Wednesday and Thursday, as was her boyfriend.
At about 22H30, her boyfriend received another telephone call from a colleague, asking for a flashlight, as a female child had disappeared, to which he responded that he did not have one, both remaining at the witness’s home until the next day.
She only became aware of the events on Friday morning when she returned to work
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compare Hayley's statement to her boyfriends's - no mention of obtaining a service vehicle and driving home separately
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NLNO-CONCEIGAO.htm
That he comes to the process as a witness and states:
- That he is a functionary of the Ocean Club for about eight years and exercises his functions in the maintenance area. He is responsible for fulfilling maintenance requests on all the buildings related to the resort.
- That he works daily from 09H00 to 18H00, with weekly breaks on Wednesday and Thursday. Besides his routine hours, he also may be called at any time to carry out maintenance/repairs.
- That the majority of people who stay at the resort are foreigners, mainly English.
- Questioned, he states that, last Thursday, he was off duty but was called by the reception and went to the resort around 020H30 to open a door that had problems. After completing the work for which he was called, which took him about 15 minutes, he left for his residence, and was again contacted, at around 22H15 to ask him if there were torch/flash lights that could be used to help look for a child that had gone missing. The deponent responded that there weren't any and was not called again that night.
- When he arrived the next morning, around 07H10, he encountered many people and GNR/police close to block 5 along with some foreigners, who, at the time, he associated with the disappearance of the child he had heard about the night before. He headed toward his place of work and that morning carried out his functions which included the cleaning of the pools next to the Tapas restaurant. He did not notice anything out of the ordinary.
- During the day he learnt more via his colleagues of the story of the missing child.
- Questioned, he states that he never came across a circumstance that made him pay particular attention to this family, not with the children or before the disappearance.
- Questioned, he states that he does not remember having seen Madeleine's face before her photograph was released in the media and which he helped distribute to the apartments after her disappearance.
- He states that the break-ins to the apartments are common, especially
for burglary purposes, and that some are the result of clients leaving their doors open.
- Questioned, he states that according to what he remembers, he did not observe any abnormal movements by any individual that would indicate s/he was preparing to commit a criminal act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then compare to Susan Owen's testimony that Hayley (I can find no other "Hayley" listed as an OC employee but stand to be corrected)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SUSAN-OWEN.htm
*snip*
That on the May 03, 2007, at around 22H45, she was in the bar known as ?Mirage? together with her colleagues, whose names are Emma, Shinead, Najoua Hayley and Stacy, which is situated close to the perimeter of the aforementioned resort. After returning from the bathroom, she was informed by her colleague Hayley that a child, of about 3 years of age, and whom was staying at the Ocean Club, had disappeared;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, where was Hayley that night? Was she in the bar or at home? Did Nuno take a service vehicle from OC - and if so - what for & why fail to mention it? How many "service vehicles" does OC have?
There are more secrets & clandestine goings-on in Luz than in the village of Midsommer. Discuss.
Yes I had already seen the discrepancies in Hayley and boyfriend statement (which should be on here) I did not however see the statement of her colleague who was at the Bar.................Well spotted
...So, where was Hayley that night? Was she in the bar or at home? Did Nuno take a service vehicle from OC - and if so - what for & why fail to mention it? How many "service vehicles" does OC have?There were 2 Hayleys. See Vol 4 page 852
There are more secrets & clandestine goings-on in Luz than in the village of Midsommer. Discuss.
Sorry if I have duplicated and it has been discussed before - I'm pretty new here & it's quite hard finding your way around (especially when posts are moved or deleted).
I was re-reading all the OC employees' statements on another forum last night & found it unbelieveable just how many RM had translated, and how many nannies/staff weren't asked to account for their movements on that fateful night.
Sorry if I have duplicated and it has been discussed before - I'm pretty new here & it's quite hard finding your way around (especially when posts are moved or deleted).
I was re-reading all the OC employees' statements on another forum last night & found it unbelieveable just how many RM had translated, and how many nannies/staff weren't asked to account for their movements on that fateful night.
There were 2 Hayleys. See Vol 4 page 852
Thank you for that, Pegasus. It makes sense as Hayley Aldridge (who seems to have escape the glare of the PJ files) was also Mark Warner employee form the UK like Susan.
An interesting interview with her two years ago - this case has left its mark far & wide.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hairandbeautyjobs.com%2Fcommunity_subpages.php%3Fcommunityid%3D7%26id%3D40&ei=akLyU-fBDYGn0QX92AE&usg=AFQjCNEvnbuJtA1oqxU91jrpNtrzZjm_vQ&bvm=bv.73231344,d.d2k
Thank you for that, Pegasus. It makes sense as Hayley Aldridge (who seems to have escape the glare of the PJ files) was also Mark Warner employee form the UK like Susan.Thanks I hadn't seen that before. And "staff really come together in hard times" would be referring to 2007.
An interesting interview with her two years ago - this case has left its mark far & wide.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hairandbeautyjobs.com%2Fcommunity_subpages.php%3Fcommunityid%3D7%26id%3D40&ei=akLyU-fBDYGn0QX92AE&usg=AFQjCNEvnbuJtA1oqxU91jrpNtrzZjm_vQ&bvm=bv.73231344,d.d2k
Why Is there no statement, when apparently she was interviewed?
Ok so it's not a police statement, but its a strange statement in a press interview:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387281/Madeleine-McCann-flat-rented-4-years-vanished.html
"And she added that Portuguese detectives didn't even open any of the cupboards when they cordoned off the flats in the hunt for the missing girl."
A curious claim. Obviously the owner has no way of knowing that. But thought-provoking anyway.
Is it possible that, when the GNR arrived at the apartment, and while GNR were cordoning off the apartment with crimescene ribbons, and while PJ were doing their forensics that night, and throughout all the next day, the object of their search was actually still inside the apartment?
Only if she was wearing one of those special cloaking devices designed by Freescale.There have been many cases where a child has been reported missing, where both the parents and the police have searched the home and failed to find the child, then a huge search of the outside has been conducted, only for the child to later be found in the home.
There have been many cases where a child has been reported missing, where both the parents and the police have searched the home and failed to find the child, then a huge search of the outside has been conducted, only for the child to later be found in the home.
Typically in these cases the child has fallen asleep in an odd place inside the home - Here, from real cases, are a few examples of where they fell asleep:
Under a pile of toys - under their own bed - in a chest of drawers - under a beanbag - under a pile of plastic bags in a cupboard under the kitchen sink - under a pile of clothes in a wardrobe
All real cases. It does happen.
I'm sure it does happen. Those are cases where a thorough search obviously didn't take place. On the other hand if you do search every inch of the place and the child isn't found - you are then in danger of being accused of damaging the crime scene
You can't be accused of tampering with the crime scene by looking everywhere in the apartment e.g. in wardrobes and cupboards for your missing child. But what is unacceptable is deliberate tampering with the raised shutters. Kate got Dianne to try and raise them from the outside and then after she left Fiona arrived and she did the same thing. Why were the shutters so important to the McCanns? Getting other finger prints on them? Trying to break them? That is deliberate tampering with the crime scene. You should know that entry and exit points i.e. doors and windows should be not tampered with at a crime scene and you should keep away from an open window.
Once again you expect the McCanns and co to think and behave like policemen. Totally unrealistic IMO.
IMO Gerry was hoping that the shutters could not be opened from the outside as that would give him a tiny hope that Madeleine might just have opened them herself. Once he found out they could be opened from the outside that last little bit of hope would disappear.
Why do you think that Diane Webster would deliberately tamper with the shutters?
Have you any evidence that Kate got DW and Fiona to deliberately tamper with them? I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I don't recall seeing any.
In all those cases I mentioned the searchers did think they had done a complete and thorough search inside the residence.
I'm sure it does happen. Those are cases where a thorough search obviously didn't take place. On the other hand if you do search every inch of the place and the child isn't found - you are then in danger of being accused of damaging the crime scene
In all those cases I mentioned the searchers did think they had done a complete and thorough search inside the residence.
For example, in the case of the missing child who was eventually discovered under a pile of plastic bags in the cupboard under the sink, the mother had specifically searched in that cupboard at the beginning, and failed to find the child who was in there.
It is a psychological phenomenon - people (parents and police alike) search for a conscious child. They do not search for an unconscious child (i.e. sleeping in all the cases I mentioned so far).
There was no loft, no cellar in the villa & it would seem very limited storage space.So I am not alone in looking at absolutely every physical space, rather than just the obvious ones.
I assume forensics would have removed the bath panel??
So I am not alone in looking at absolutely every physical space, rather than just the obvious ones.
BTW I am looking at apartment (not villa), where see in video physical space between the end of the bath and the south wall of bathroom, this space is enclosed.
However Eddie searches apartment bathroom and does not signal, which rules it out.
Although if you were a really clever murderer, you would have put the corpse inside half a dozen bin bags, tied tightly at the top before removing the bath panel..........but surely, surely, the CSI would have pulled the place apart....wouldn't they???Looking at 3rd/4th May:
Looking at 3rd/4th May:
GNR search of apartment was far from complete IMO.
PJ did not search the apartment at all IMO, they thinking no need as GNR already had.
Forensics IMO just looked for hairs fingerprints etc and in selected areas of apartment only.
Amaral had been in the drugs squad. If there was one area he should have been an expert in, it was searching premises for items cleverly concealed. By his own admission, he suspected the parents straight away. Why would he fail to follow his natural instinct & order his officers to delve into every nook & cranny?I am looking at what actually did happen, long before Mr Amaral was informed.
... if you don't believe that parents and police can search a residence and miss a child completely, search for Abbotskerswell. And there are many more cases like that.I'm not doubting your word for one minute - I recall reading the very same thing a few years ago but not the name of the child. Sleeping children tend to wake up, though, whereas dead children don't.
I'm not doubting your word for one minute - I recall reading the very same thing a few years ago but not the name of the child. Sleeping children tend to wake up, though, whereas dead children don't.I think certainly when the GNR arrived no-one had found or concealed anything.
As you said, Madeleine wasn't killed & concealed in 5a that night. She was taken - I still maintain my own opinion of by whom & why - but I, like everyone else, must hope that the Met uncover the truth.
I think certainly when the GNR arrived no-one had found or concealed anything.
And I think the GNR search inside was not nearly thorough enough - they could easily have missed something.
The amount of dog hairs found suggests the GNR dogs were in the apartment for some time after their arrival on the 4th; IMO had there been a dead body secreted somewhere, these sniffer dogs would have indicated such.A good point.
If the GNR officers had missed something I doubt their dogs would.
A good point.
Did forensics on 4th May find dog hairs inside the apartment?
If so, in which rooms?
Or was it early Aug 2007 when forensics found dog hairs? (if so they would be Eddie's and Keela's)
A good point.
Did forensics on 4th May find dog hairs inside the apartment?
If so, in which rooms?
Or was it early Aug 2007 when forensics found dog hairs? (if so they would be Eddie's and Keela's)
The dogs were used to recover victims from earthquakes, floodings,...not exactly "rural" dogs. The fact that they missed the scent says a lot to what happened to that little kiddo. She must have been wrapped inside the apart before taken out.
Wrapped in what exactly?
From the link Anna provided but you did not bother to read - saying exactly that they were trained for work in a "rural" environment. I think it would be safe to say they were "rural dogs.
-Snip - Subsequently an attempt was made to reconstruct the route taken by Madeleine by giving the dogs a blanket/towel used by her, but the results were not significant, given that the dogs are more trained for use in rural areas rather than urban or populated areas, the existence of more odours in the air making it impossible for the tracker dog to identify/locate the “target smell”.
Is this Jane Tanner?
EXCLUSIVE: Who was the woman outside Maddie's flat?
A WOMAN was seen acting suspiciously outside Kate and Gerry McCann’s apartment just an hour before their daughter Madeleine was abducted.
The slim, Portuguese-looking woman in a plum-coloured top and white skirt with long, dark, swept-back hair acted furtively when she was spotted at 8pm on May 3 in 2007 near the Mark Warner Ocean Club complex.
She was standing under a streetlight at a crossroads only 40 feet from where Madeleine was sleeping with her brother Sean and his twin sister Amelie.
Investigators are being urged to find her to see if she was in any way connected to a pockmarked prowler seen several times outside the apartment in the day leading up to the kidnap.
Details of the mystery woman have only just become known after a Sunday Express investigation into the baffling case was alerted by an elderly British woman who has lived in Praia da Luz on Portugal’s Algarve for more than 30 years.
Speaking from her villa near the Ocean Club, the woman, who has asked not to be named, recalled: “On that night I went to the supermarket at the bottom of the road just before it closed at 8pm.
“As I drove past the entrance to the Ocean Club I saw a woman standing opposite Apartment 5A the McCanns were staying in.
“Even at that time of night the streets were deserted, so I was surprised to see someone there. I remember thinking it was unusual because it is just not the sort of place you would hang around.
“As I drove up to the junction she stepped around to the other side of the street lamp as though she didn’t want me to look at her. She was not carrying a bag or a mobile phone. I thought she might have been waiting for a lift but no car came along while I was there.
“I turned right and could see quite clearly she was looking at Apartment 5A.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_a9wriOtQCu8/TMkqzfJ73yI/AAAAAAAAAII/LqbK4pfW9bk/s1600/jane+tanner++one.jpg)
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/100071/EXCLUSIVE-Who-was-the-woman-outside-Maddie-s-flat
I left my apartment pushing my son's pram so that he could sleep. I did not have a particular direction to follow nor did I have a specific time to do this. I left the apartment and turned right. I walked via the lower street, looked to the building block where the McCann apartment was situated and saw a woman dressed in purple clothing.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
"An elderly British woman who'd lived on the Algarve for more than 30 years in a villa close to OC & had just been to the Batista at around 8pm"
Now, let me see....who fits that description?????????
The McCanns can't prove that Madeleine was in bed. One says she was on top of the covers because it was hot and the other says she was under the covers because it was cold. That makes perfect sense to you doesn't it Sadie @)(++(*Yep, it does cos the two "sightings" of Madeleine were half an hour or more apart.
Yep, it does cos the two "sightings" of Madeleine were half an hour or more apart.
Madeleine was not a tiny baby, as she got cooler or warmer, she was quite capable of moving her position in bed from 'in the bed' to 'on top'. Also vice versa.
Surely you can understand that ?
Those two sightings don't sound very similar do they? One had a blanket the other didn't. One child was smaller and carried in a different way. You're not very good at connecting things. The yard have found bundleman crecheman.Why are you obfuscating again?
Why are you obfuscating again?
You well know that I was talking about Madeleine being on top of the bed, or within it, when I used the word "sightings". I was referring to the one parent remembering her in the bed and the other remembering her on top of the bed.
I pointed out that Madeleine was not a baby and completely able to move herself onto the bedclothes if hot and vice versa if cold
DO NOT TWIST MY WORDS and use them in a different context / situation That is tantermount to lying. Why do you need to do that?
Gerry clearly said if you bother to read his statement that Madeleine was in the same exact sleeping position as at the start of the night so Kate couldn't have seen her under the cover. She wasn't in bed and she didn't go out to play at 6:30.
Misty has done quite a bit of excellent research here.
I haven't read that particular statement before.
He/she has also gone to trouble of trying to confirm who that person is; time consuming but possible in a country where many records are in the public domain and thus accessible.
Ah, never trust a Portuguese police secretary!!!!
The surname begins with F, not K, and checks out.
Can't work out why the translator felt the need to use initials instead of the full names which are available for all to see in the Portuguese document anyway.
Ah, never trust a Portuguese police secretary!!!!
The surname begins with F, not K, and checks out.
I don't think the British public were ever meant to see the original Portuguese documents.
There certainly seem to have been several errors recording the correct spelling of people's names, though. The lady mentioned in this particular statement....I think her last name is Rohner, not Robner. Slightly worrying is the fact a person of her name & approx age is listed on 192 at University of Exeter.......
I don't think the British public were ever meant to see the original Portuguese documents.
There certainly seem to have been several errors recording the correct spelling of people's names, though. The lady mentioned in this particular statement....I think her last name is Rohner, not Robner. Slightly worrying is the fact a person of her name & approx age is listed on 192 at University of Exeter.......
... in Carlisle, but it is likely to be an innocent coincidence ...Middle initial does not match (unless PJ spelt that wrong too).
Two break downs witnessed by David Payne:
"I remember going into Kate and Gerry's err bedroom with Gerry and he'd perhaps you know fling a cupboard open and just have a look and, ah you know and just shut the door and you know in a vein, desperate hope that she might have been err you know in, in the wardrobe or something, and then he, you know flung him, flung himself on the floor and just you know kicking the floor and just with, you know, she's gone, she's gone."
"Me and Gerry you know I'm not sure what time it was, it was you know between three and four o' clock when, again went looking for her. We went down err through past the Ocean Club reception, we went down err to the beach and he broke down with me on the front, you know. You know just very obviously a broken man, and you know we spent some time you know, not long, I was trying my best to console him, we went back then to the err the apartment, you know it's, by around about four, four thirty in the morning you know there was nothing else that you know that we could do."
WOW!! what a remarkable revelation ... the father of a missing child breaking down ... how extraordinary!
Here's one I've just read:
Witness statement 2007.11.21 (in English)
Statement of Carolyn Kish
Statement date 21.11.07
I am a British national, and I live in a house in the village in Portugal having lived there for 9 years.
I used to live in Worcester and my family still live there.
I came back to UK on 23rd April 07 to Coventry. I believe with Fly Thomson and was travelling alone.
I flew back with the same airline on 30th April from Coventry to Faro.
I had booked my travel arrangements through a company in Lagos. Part of the package included collecting me from faro and taking me home.
I didn't see any news as my T.V. was not working.
On the afternoon of Monday 7.5.07 I was in Lagos as I needed to do some banking. My car is xxxx coloured and has an English Registration.
Near to the main road in Lagos is a pedestrian area. There are parking spaces at the side and I parked in one of those spaces. There are ATMS near there and I went to the one on the left hand. I don't know what the bank is called but it is about 3 doors away from the Banco Espirito Santos.
On walking towards the ATM I was aware of a man in the pedestrian area. He was holding something to his ear which I thought might be a Dictaphone but later assumed it was a mobile phone.
I noticed him as he was talking very loudly. I remember him saying 'PLEASE DO NOT HURT MADELEINE' There was a lot of other speech, but I can only remember that phrase.
I think he had a notebook in his left hand and I think he was holding the phone in his right hand. The notebook seemed to be the type that journalists use. He seemed very upset and the way he was acting and with the notebook I assumed he was an actor or journalist.
It was very quiet and no-one else was around.
He was pacing up and down, being 10 metres away from me at the furthest, and the closest he was just a few feet away as he walked past me at the back while I was using the ATM.
I would describe him as a white male about 5.6' with pale mousey coloured hair. It think he was wearing an overcoat or raincoat of dark coloured with grey being the main colour I remember. I thought he was talking with a slight Irish accent.
I withdrew 150 Euros at the bank and I also withdraw some cash from my fathers account. I was at the machine for a couple of minutes and when I left the man was still there walking and pacing up and down. I thought to myself 'who's Madeleine'. When I got back into my car the man was still there as I drove away.
I had a lot of chances to see the man's face during that time, and I had never seen him before.
The account the card services is xxxxxxxxxxxxxx in my name at the xxxxx branch. The sort code xxxxxxxx and the account no. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The card has now been replaced with another sand I don't have the old card number.
I was then going to xxxxxx (a two minute drive away. I was going to do some insurance paperwork.
I have been a member of this bank for many years and am known by staff there. There were 3 staff working and I know that lunch is between 1pm and 2pm, so I think my visit was before that. One of the staff was xxxxx, one was xxx. I was talking to the one of the staff xxxxx. She has a daughter called xxxxx and she always chats when I visit.
She asked me if I heard about the missing English girl. I said I hadn't seen any news. She told me the missing child was called Madeleine and had gone missing from a resort along the coast. I told her that the man I had just heard must have been the father of the child. I only assumed this by logic and from the conversation AFTER the fact.
In relation to the identity of the man I saw I thought initially that he must be the father based on what he said and what the staff had said about the missing girl.
I went to the third local bank to do some more banking.
I don't usually watch or follow news. But months after this saw a news report on the local TV station at home. The footage showed the father of the missing girl. At that point I realised it was the man I had seen on the occasion above. I had not seen this picture before, but I am as sure as can be that he is the person.
I have been asked whether I have made this assumption but I do not believe I have. I am 99.99% sure if shown his photograph with lots of others I would have picked him out as the man.
I have heard GM on t.v. And my interpretation of his accent is that it's slight Scottish or Irish.
I am more interested in the case and have been following it since this event.
@Misty
This Ukranian couple lived near Porto in the north of Portugal. I assume this diligence resulted from a sighting up near Porto. 2/5/2007 is the date he bought that vehicle
(Clearly this couple is different from the other Ukranian couple and their daughter, who lived in Alvor, who the Mccluskys saw and were convinced were K and G Mccann with their daughter)
The info I posted is directly linked to the McCluskeys' statements in the files and specifically refers to "Ukranian couple ruled out". Why would it be there if there was no connection?IMO there is no connection in the actual files between the Leca De Balio ukranian couple and the Alvor sighting.
IMO there is no connection in the actual files between the Leca De Balio ukranian couple and the Alvor sighting.
The identification of the ukranian couple seen in Alvor by the Mccluskeys is given in the handwritten note on this page http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A1_5/apenso5_vol_1_Page127.jpg. They lived in Alvor and their daughter went to nursery in Portimao, and his flatbed truck registration matched that noted by the witnesses.
I agree with everything you have posted. So, why the attempt to mislead the readers by specifically linking 2 different Ukrainian couples?I think in the actual files there is no link between them. The mccannpjfiles site sort of associates them by referring to both on one of their pages, the site is just trying to be helpful IMO.
I think in the actual files there is no link between them. The mccannpjfiles site sort of associates them by referring to both on one of their pages, the site is just trying to be helpful IMO.
What I find remarkable about the Alvor sighting is that the witnesses identified GM by carrying style equalling the carrying style at East Midlands Airport , and yet it turned out it was not him at all. An indicator that perhaps MSmith's almost identical identification by carrying style may be equally mistaken JIMO.
@Misty yes seems the PJ had identified and ruled out the Ukranian couple in Alvor before the september witness statement.
BTW the local newspaper report is still at http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/wear-couple-told-police-we-saw-maddie-1-1152843
The witness actually identified Kate as being the woman in Alvor, not having seen the man from the front at all. Much emphasis has been placed on 2 witnesses commenting on Gerry's child-carrying style but it was really one ID'ing Gerry & another ID'ing Kate. The Alvor witness unfortunately had never been told that his suspects had been identified & cleared.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm#a5v1p131
In my original statement I described a distressed female who ran down a road towards a white van I had described.
Having viewed recent news footage of Mrs McCann I am now almost certain that she is the female I described as being in a distressed state. I say this because of her slight build, high cheekbones and her eyes and hairstyle.
I've agonised for days over whether or not to contact the police about this because it is a terrible thing to accuse somebody of. It had just not crossed my mind that the child?s parents could in some way be involved in her disappearance.
I have watched a good deal of news coverage about the McCanns over the past week or so. Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.
Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child?s weight.
===============================================================================
I remember googling info on this witness and there was family stuff reported in local newspapers & put on the net a few years back. All that has now vanished and I can find no evidence of the incident which occurred in official records. More than a few times, I have wondered just how much of the information we source via the net is accurate & how much is planted/removed to suit an agenda.
I can understand from watching that and hearing other expert opinions how many elements of the McCann behaviour fit the profiling. Did the McCanns court publicity of their own volition?
Also, I presume there was actual forensic evidence to substantiate the guilt of the American killers?
Thanks Pegasus. Seems like all the creche staff were out searching until 4am. And some were back again searching at 8:30 am. Kate and Gerry were searching in the hours between and saw nobody. I suppose they were allowed a few hours sleep but no nobody was searching except us her parents.The parents were tied up with the Police, despair, phone calls, trying to work things out and moving apartments. They may well not have been aware that everyone was searching.
The parents were tied up with the Police, despair, phone calls, trying to work things out and moving apartments. They may well not have been aware that everyone was searching.
And, of course, they were desperate that everyone should be searching all the time. They wre aware that they were on their own. You would be too. It is only natural.
You are making something of nothing Pathfinder. Think of the reality of desperate parents.
They were aware by the time they released Madeleine in 2011. Blaming others but they won't blame their own actions.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@37.0880652,-8.7253499,38m/data=!3m1!1e3
GM Blog 22 August 2007
Kate is keen to get in touch with a very nice mum, who she spoke with at the toddler pool in the Ocean Club on Sunday 3rd June. She is sure you will remember the conversation and Kate would be grateful if you could get in touch at with her at campaign@findmadeleine.com
"It was the following evening, Sunday 3 June - exactly a month after Madeleine's abduction - that Gerry and I opened up a little more to each other and shared some of the thoughts and anxieties that had been quietly tormenting us both: thoughts and anxieties that perhaps we hadn't felt able to ready to voice up to now.........We acknowledged the possibility that Madeleine might no longer be alive.......For me, the honest exposure of this buried poison was like lancing a boil. ......Strengthened and comforted, I fell asleep that night more peacefully than I had in many days."
The Portuguese authorities possess a great deal of material that was not included in the police file released into the public domain. The British police, too, hold information we do not have. The more data we can acquire, the more complete the picture will be and the stronger our chances of finding our daughter. If a review is declined, or indeed if no decision is ever made, we will be left with no alternative but to seek disclosure of all information possessed by the authorities relating to Madeleine’s disappearance. In the absence of any other active investigation, it must surely be in Madeleine’s best interests that we and our team are given access to records that will otherwise just sit there gathering dust. (Madeleine) 8)--))Is this a strange witness statement? If not then surely it's "off-topic".
"Kate has been cuddling a little toy who we call Cuddle Cat. Kate has taken comfort from that. She can probably smell Madeleine." (Susan Healy)Are these strange witness statements? If not then surely this post is "off-topic".
17 June
How dare they insinuate that our daughter's life could be put in danger because of us. Very angry. Very upset.
I sent a text message to Ricardo. I don't know if was a sensible idea but I feel really annoyed.
My darling little Madeleine, you know that we wouldn't do anything to put you in danger.
30 May
Tomorrow it will be 4 weeks since Madeleine was taken. Four weeks since we saw our special little girl. We are not certain that we will ever see her again, but know that we have to keep up our hope and strength—for the others, at least. Exhausted.
"I have looked back at my diaries from that time and I talk about climbing into a hole and not climbing out." (KM Leveson Inquiry)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y7I8F7fC0v0/TdOU20sdR7I/AAAAAAAAAJ0/-YpxvvdfvWQ/s1600/mccannsLAUGHINGsoon+-after-3rdmay-07-talking-about-paedo-abuse-to-Maddy-page-129-book-madeleine.jpg)
The sofa was up against the wall so how could a child be behind it? The curtain was trapped *&*%£Ah but pathfinder what time is your photo taken?
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/apartment5ainterior4.jpg)
Ah but pathfinder what time is your photo taken?
2 am? 3am?
Sofa position at 11pm is likely to have been different.
If detectives are following a death theory behind sofa because of both CSI dog alerts then they have to take into account the alerted clothes. If they follow that it connects to an earlier time.
SY are not taking any notice of the dog's alerts
(http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/6/3/1401811436562/Scotland-Yard-detectives--006.jpg)
After all this time you don't understand...those dog's are looking for evidence and the alerts are meaningless.
So tell me...the dog's in the photograph...are there any recorded alerts....
You said they aren't taking any notice of the dog alerts. Their own actions prove different unless you think they're using cadaver dogs to look for a living missing child. What are cadaver dogs used for?
If you read David Paynes' rogatory statement you will see that 2 brand new PAYG phones were delivered to him at the police station on 4th May 2007. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
His rambling explanation of why and how they got them seemed unconvincing to me and i wondered if they were delivered to them in order for someone to be able to contact them without the police knowing. What Carolyn Kish says upholds that. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROLYN-KISH.htm
Gerry Mccann had access to three mobile phones during the first days after the disappearance of Madeleine, but whether any police were able to get records for the PAYG phones is anybodies guess if they didn't know they existed until 11th April 2008. Both the Mccanns appeared in an appeal on the BBC shown at 2pm on the 7th, but it could have been recorded earlier than that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kaoVqWaOQI
If you read David Paynes' rogatory statement you will see that 2 brand new PAYG phones were delivered to him at the police station on 4th May 2007. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
His rambling explanation of why and how they got them seemed unconvincing to me and i wondered if they were delivered to them in order for someone to be able to contact them without the police knowing. What Carolyn Kish says upholds that. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROLYN-KISH.htm
Gerry Mccann had access to three mobile phones during the first days after the disappearance of Madeleine, but whether any police were able to get records for the PAYG phones is anybodies guess if they didn't know they existed until 11th April 2008. Both the Mccanns appeared in an appeal on the BBC shown at 2pm on the 7th, but it could have been recorded earlier than that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kaoVqWaOQI
If you read David Paynes' rogatory statement you will see that 2 brand new PAYG phones were delivered to him at the police station on 4th May 2007...One of them was 91745331*
If you want to obtain phones without the police knowing about them, you'd have to be a bit thick to have them delivered to you while you're at... a police station.
An alternative explanation is that as roaming charges are extortionate, and you get charged even for incoming calls, some kind soul arranged for a local option.
Do stop it Carana - you are spoiling things for the conspiracy theorists with your reasonable and logical explanations.
Why did GM state that he used his key to enter?
"Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition." (GM 4 May)
"There is a report from Control Risks, the first private detective agency which was brought to the case [by the McCanns] in the very first days, where they state, after speaking with Gerald McCann and other witnesses in that group [Tapas 9], that the key that Mr. Gerald McCann alleges to have used had in fact been left in the kitchen, in the kitchen’s counter. Right away, the lies started." (GA)
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statement might lead us to suspect a homicide. This is a lead that should be investigated." (Lee Rainbow)
Why did GM state that he used his key to enter?
"Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition." (GM 4 May)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html
"There is a report from Control Risks, the first private detective agency which was brought to the case [by the McCanns] in the very first days, where they state, after speaking with Gerald McCann and other witnesses in that group [Tapas 9], that the key that Mr. Gerald McCann alleges to have used had in fact been left in the kitchen, in the kitchen’s counter. Right away, the lies started." (GA)
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/03/maddie-case-goncalo-amaral-returns-to.html
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statement might lead us to suspect a homicide. This is a lead that should be investigated." (Lee Rainbow)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250084/How-letter-UK-police-turned-spotlight-Kate-Gerry-McCann.html
Thank you. So different stories from the newspapers again.
What Lee Rainbow actually said....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1163.msg32653#msg32653
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t2450-what-lee-rainbow-actually-said
Have you read his report? Homicide are investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Thank you. So different stories from the newspapers again.
What Lee Rainbow actually said....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1163.msg32653#msg32653
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t2450-what-lee-rainbow-actually-said
I wonder if this was the fabled "Ace up the sleeve" we heard so much about.
I can't find a copy of Lee Rainbow's Report (anyone seen it?) ... I presume it must have been in the "confidential" files, some of which were not released on the request of Leicestershire Police.
Therefore the only possible check we have are newspaper reports of the trial which quote only Dr Amaral's lawyer's interpretation of what was said ... so knowing that those closest to the victim are eliminated in the first instance it is extraordinary it took a criminal profiler to indicate what action should have been taken in policing terms right at the beginning of the investigation.
Lee Rainbow's report actually highlights another glaring omission in the conduct of Madeleine's McCann's case.
**snip**
Details of the confidential report emerged during the final day of a libel trial involving former Portuguese detective Goncalo Amaral, who led the Madeleine investigation.
Amaral is trying to overturn a worldwide injunction banning the publication of his book Maddie: The Truth of the Lie. In it he claims Kate and Gerry were involved in Madeleine's death and staged her disappearance. His lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, told the court that Rainbow wrote: "It was Madeleine's father who was the last one to see her alive.
"The family is a lead that should be followed.
The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."
Cabrita added: "This report has never been published before but is part of the investigation. On June 1st 2007 British police had the theory that Madeleine could be dead and the family could be involved.
"It was British police who said they must consider not only abduction but homicide as well."
The NPIA provided a checklist of what should be done, advising the Portuguese police to include the McCanns in their inquiry and take new forensics at their holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
Last night an NPIA spokesman said: "In disappearance cases it is common for the NPIA to advise investigating officers to consider the possibility of the involvement of family and close friends. The NPIA gave similar generic advice to the Portuguese police in the Madeleine McCann case."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-should-be-treated-as-suspects-brit-200689
I believe mark rainbow said what is in red but not what was in blue
Correct, I believe
What Lee Rainbow actually said....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1163.msg32653#msg32653
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t2450-what-lee-rainbow-actually-said
So you are saying this court report is fantasy land? You shouldn't keep on repeating that thread is the truth when you haven't read his full report!
Amaral is trying to overturn a worldwide injunction banning the publication of his book Maddie: The Truth of the Lie. In it he claims Kate and Gerry were involved in Maddie's death and staged her disappearance. His lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, told the court Rainbow wrote: "It was Madeleine's father who was the last one to see her alive.
"The family is a lead that should be followed. The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."
Cabrita added: "This report has never been published before but is part of the investigation.
On June 1st 2007 British police had the theory that Madeleine could be dead and the family could be involved.
"It was British police who said they must consider not only abduction but homicide as well."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id308.html
Thought so - Thanks Benice.
Just wanted to mention that Gerry McCann was in possession of at least two PAYG mobiles which the PJ were not aware of.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
If you read David Paynes' rogatory statement you will see that 2 brand new PAYG phones were delivered to him at the police station on 4th May 2007. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
His rambling explanation of why and how they got them seemed unconvincing to me and i wondered if they were delivered to them in order for someone to be able to contact them without the police knowing. What Carolyn Kish says upholds that. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROLYN-KISH.htm
Gerry Mccann had access to three mobile phones during the first days after the disappearance of Madeleine, but whether any police were able to get records for the PAYG phones is anybodies guess if they didn't know they existed until 11th April 2008. Both the Mccanns appeared in an appeal on the BBC shown at 2pm on the 7th, but it could have been recorded earlier than that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kaoVqWaOQI
01:26:10 Reply "Yeah, I mean err it may well have been SA gave us a contact of someone that was a friend of the family in Portugal who err could get us mobile phones because Kate and Gerry you know hadn't got any contact, you know way of contacting, their batteries were running out or something like that.
1485 "And who's SA''
Reply "Err he is err my, Fiona's sister LW, that's her husband.'
01:04:02 1485 "And where were these phones, when did these phones arrive''
Reply "Err when did we get the phones' When we were at the Police Station, err you know as, you know I just asked whether I could just pop downstairs there was someone who's brought us phones and they said yeah, so I quickly popped downstairs, got the phones, and took them back into the Police Station. Err I can't remember if there was any power in them when we opened them up but err so then that was, you know, so the phones were just, you know because we hadn't got any other, anything there, so.'
1485 "And what phones were they' Do you remember what sort of, what make they were''
Reply "Err they were Samsung phones, err and I think they were Vodaphone SIM cards. Err the actual model, I can't tell you the Samsung phone but they were, something like the Samsung three hundred, something like that.'
1485 "Yeah, how many phones were there''
Reply "There was, there was two err and we ended up, err again, we ended up keeping one and Kate and Gerry had one, I think we gave the second one to Kate and Gerry as well after a while but we were err you know because they'd got credit put on to them so we were just using those phones rather than run up the expense of our own phones.'
1485 "Yeah.'
01:05:33 Reply "So err yeah.'
1485 "So the two phones, you've kept one and gave one to Kate and Gerry''
Reply "Kate and Gerry yeah.'
1485 "And do you have the numbers of those phones in your phone''
Reply "I don't, no, no.'
1485 "Where are these phones now''
Reply "Err as far as I am aware that they, you know, remained in Portugal, again''
1485 "With whom''
Reply "With Kate and Gerry.'
1485 "So Kate and Gerry took possession of that second phone which you had''
Reply "Well, they certainly kept the first one, the second one, the second one, sorry, no I think that's rubbish. I think I, I may well have got the, I might have got the second phone. Actually I've got a sneaky feeling when I got home I tried the UK SIM card in it and it didn't work so I could well have got the second phone.'
1485 "So is it likely that this second phone is at your home address''
Reply "Err that is a strong possibility.'
1485 "So two Samsung phones.'
Reply "Yeah, yeah.'
1485 "One is, to your knowledge, still with Kate and Gerry.'
Reply "Yeah.'
1485 "The other one you may well have at your home address.'
Reply "Yeah, yeah.'
1485 "Did you use the phones often''
Reply "Not''
1485 "In Portugal''
Reply "Not a great deal no, no, it was, it was, first of all you know we didn't have any numbers in them already and then with being a Portuguese phone you know it was just a bit more difficult so we, if we ever used them, I mean which wasn't often, we'd perhaps call Kate and Gerry using the Portuguese phone, but it wasn't a kind of religious oh we'll just use the, that Portuguese phone to err you know establish communication.'
1485 "Yeah.'
01:07:23 Reply "Err you know and the other reason that we, we had the, one of the phones is because Fiona didn't have a phone either so you know, so it's like she had the use of the other phone as well.'
1485 "Right, so out of the two of you then, who predominantly used that phone''
Reply "I'd say Fiona.'
1485 "Fiona''
Reply "Yeah.'
1485 "And has it been used since it's been in the UK''
Reply "No.'
1485 "Okay, okay.'
Reply "And I'm just trying to think you know how much, you know the, the, I can't remember you know obviously we were there for four weeks after but when the actual credit ran out, because I remember the credit running out and not being able to actually put anymore on even though it's supposed to be quite straight forward but again, you know whether that was after, you know, three weeks of being out there or whatever I can't remember.'
1485 "Yeah, how many times do you think you topped it up then''
Reply "I don't, I don't think we did, I don't think I did. I don't think I could work out how to do it to be honest.'
1485 "So when both of them arrived both of them had credit on them''
Reply "They put, I think they put, I think err I think they put forty pound credit or forty euros, you know, which seemed to last a lot longer than the amount of credit we were (inaudible) we were using our own err mobile phones.'
1485 "Just wait there a second I'll just (inaudible).'
Reply "Okay.'
01:08:40 DC MESSIAH leaves the interview room.
01:09:00 DC MESSIAH re-enters the interview room.
1485 "All done.'
Reply "Okay.'
1485 "The phone, is it likely that I could collect it when I take you home''
Reply "I can certainly have a look for it and I can give you, I mean if you, if you wanted to have my other mobile phone with all the numbers in and you know if you can access text messages on that you're welcome to have that phone.'
1485 "Okay, do you know where you'd be able to put your hand on it if you''
Reply "Err the Samsung one, again, there was a Vodaphone bag that was knocking around, and that would be where it is if err I can find it. Fiona might know.'
1485 "Okay, perhaps you could give her a call or something.'
Reply "Yeah, yeah.'
1485 "Alright then, it's now sixteen forty on this date.'
01:09:48 The interview ceased at 1640 hours when the tape recorder was switched off.
SIGNATURE (Sgd)
SLS
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
So Gerry McCann was given a cheap rate phone ... Wow!!
**snip
01:04:02 1485 "And where were these phones, when did these phones arrive''
Reply "Err when did we get the phones' When we were at the Police Station, err you know as, you know I just asked whether I could just pop downstairs there was someone who's brought us phones and they said yeah, so I quickly popped downstairs, got the phones, and took them back into the Police Station. Err I can't remember if there was any power in them when we opened them up but err so then that was, you know, so the phones were just, you know because we hadn't got any other, anything there, so.' http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
... and the phone was one of two delivered to ... the police station ... in the full knowledge of the PJ. This is just getting to be too suspicious for words!!
Anything Mr Err says is suspicious *&*%£
Why is it suspicious? Because somebody (KG) came forward 2 days after RM had been made an arguido & planted some seeds of suspicion that someone had an unhealthy interest in little girls?
Don't forget KG suspicions were somewhat bolstered by those of Yvonne Martin.
Don't forget KG suspicions were somewhat bolstered by those of Yvonne Martin.
1) Julio Manuel Madeira Campos de Carvalho
--- In Rua 25 de April, ..., Praia da Luz, Mr. J.M.M.C de Carvalho was approached, it having been said that he could have approached the employees of the care centre in the Ocean Club, that that approach could have been done in the street and when he passed them in a white Renault Express.
--- Informally, he explained not recalling having meddled [interfered] with the care workers, but admitted that he could have made "a pass at [chatted up] English girls".
--- On the night of the events he was at home with his brother and nephew. At 22h00, through his girlfriend, he learned of the disappearance of the young girl and joined the general people in the searches.
--- He had nothing else of interest to the investigation.
10pm &%+((£ Needs to be followed up.
The memo was sent *from the Algarve* to the Foreign office days after Madeleine "went missing"
Quote: "With the greatest respect, I would like to make you aware of the risks and implications to our relationship with the Portuguese authorities, if you consider the possible involvement of the couple. "Please confirm to me, in the light of these concerns, that we want to continue to be closely involved in the case as was requested in your previous message."
On September 21, newly-arrived British Ambassador Alexander Wykeham Ellis informed US Ambassador Hoffman that "it was the British police that developed the current evidence against Madeleine McCann's parents."
(http://i58.tinypic.com/281gft1.jpg)
British Foreign Office: Timeline - Madeleine McCann case
BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE
TIMELINE
John Buck
British Ambassador to Portugal from 2004 to September 2007
Left office the day after the McCanns were made arguidos.
Thursday May 3, 2007 :
John Buck, the British ambassador in Portugal, called Alípio Ribeiro, the Polícia Judiciária’s national director, on the night that Madeleine disappeared from the Ocean Club.
At around 11 p.m., approximately one hour after the child’s disappearance was reported, Alípio Ribeiro had to interrupt a private dinner in order to listen to the diplomat.
Friday May 4/ Saturday May 5, 2007 (conflicting reports):
Ambassador Buck drove from Lisbon to Praia da Luz. (Distance is approximately 3 hours by car.)
Saturday May 5, 2007
Drove in from Lisbon "to be with the family after they begged him for help."
Embassy spokesman said Buck was driving down to do everything for the McCanns that he could.
Ambassador Buck and 3 "family liaison officers from Leicestershire police held a private meeting with the McCanns "at the resort" on the afternoon of May 5th.
Announced to reporters that 3 British police agents had arrived from Leicestershire to help with the investigation. He stated that the officers would act as a "liaison" between the McCanns and Portuguese police and between the Portuguese and British police. "..Mr. Buck was there to introduce the family liaison officers to the McCanns..."
The 3 "family liaison officers were flown out "at the request of the Foreign Commonwealth Office.
Leicestershire spokeswoman said the 3 officers were there "simply to assist the family" and were not going to have anything to do with the investigation at this point.
Told reporters that the investigation had been "intensive and extensive".
Reportedly Ambassador Buck "accompanied the couple...during the search on May 5"
Reported to have been "...with the family throughout their ordeal..."
Ambassador Buck's intervention was credited by the McCann's family and friends as being the only reason that the search for Madeleine was upgraded to a major investigation.
"Despite being convinced - for reasons they have refused to make public - that Madeleine is still in the Algarve, Interpol have been alerted about her disappearance and checks were being made at every Portuguese port and airport."
Sunday May 6, 2007
Ambassador Buck attended church service officiated by Father Jose Manuel Pacheco.
Monday May 7, 2007
Ambassador Buck apparently returned to Lisbon (or elsewhere, as later articles stated that he RETURNED to the Algarve on Tuesday May 8th.)
Tuesday May 8, 2007
Ambassador Buck traveled to the Algarve and met the McCanns. Reports were that the meeting lasted an hour.
He gave a television interview in which he said he had been in touch with Portuguese ministers and the prime minister Jose Socrates, and senior police chiefs who assured him everything possible was being done to ensure the safe return of Madeleine. Buck said that he was making sure the links between the British and Portuguese officers were working, after concerns had begun to be expressed regarding the experience and expertise of the Portuguese investigators.
He made a statement to the media announcing the arrival of additional British experts
Said that investigators were in close touch with Interpol and Europol
Said the McCanns were "very grateful for their efforts"
Ambassador Buck was interviewed by the Leicester Mercury. Quote: "As you know, I spent quite a lot of time with the McCann family on Friday and over the weekend. "I wanted to come down today to see Kate and Gerry again and to continue to support our consular staff, who have been working on this for a number of days."
Wednesday May 9, 2007
An email between Portimao and Lisbon of 9 May 2007 was the subject of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for Ambassador Buck's communications related to the McCanns. This email (or a portion of it) was withheld based on "Personal Information" exemption: Section 40 (2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Further information emerged regarding the 2 additional experts Buck had announced on Tuesday May 8th.
Ambassador Buck said they were "kidnapping experts" and had joined the 3 other British investigators who had been in Portugal since Saturday
"... two 'Cracker-style' criminal behaviour experts from Britain flew into the Algarve yesterday to join investigators..."
They were from CEOP and their dispatch had been organised by the British Foreign Office.
"A spokeswoman for the CEOP said the move was unprecedented and had been organised by the Foreign Office."
Thursday May 10, 2007
A Foreign Commonwealth Office internal email of 10 May 2007 (12a) was the subject of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for Ambassador Buck's communications related to the McCanns. This email (or a portion of it) was withheld based on "International relations" exemption: Section 27.1.a (1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—( a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State
A Foreign Commonwealth Office internal email of 10 May 2007 (13aa) was the subject of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for Ambassador Buck's communications related to the McCanns. This email (or a portion of it) was withheld based on "International relations" exemption: Section 27.1.a.(1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—( a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State
Friday May 11, 2007
An email between the Foreign Commonwealth Office and John Buck of 11 May 2007 was the subject of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for Ambassador Buck's communications related to the McCanns. This email (or a portion of it) was withheld based on "International relations" exemption: Section 27.1.a. (1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—( a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State
An email between John Buck and the Foreign Commonwealth Office of 11 May 2007 was the subject of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for Ambassador Buck's communications related to the McCanns. This email (or a portion of it) was withheld based on "International relations" exemption: Section 27.1.a. (1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—( a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State
An internal Foreign Commonwealth Office email of 11 May 2007 was the subject of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for Ambassador Buck's communications related to the McCanns. This email (or a portion of it) was withheld based on "International relations" exemption: Section 27.1.a.(1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—( a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State
Monday May 14, 2007
Ambassador Buck present in Praia da Luz
Spoke to national chief of police in Lisbon and chief investigating officer in the Algarve.
Thanked journalists for respecting the McCann's privacy and said there were impressive resources allocated to the investigation. Said the resources are primarily Portuguese but that there were a number of British police officers working closely with their Portuguese colleagues in the Algarve.
Arrived late for a scheduled news conference and found journalists fleeing toward Casa Lilliana where a search was underway.
Tuesday May 15, 2007
An email between Lisbon and Foreign Commonwealth Office of 15 May 2007 was the subject of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for Ambassador Buck's communications related to the McCanns. This email (or a portion of it) was withheld based on "International relations" exemption: Section 27.1.a.(1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—( a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State
Wednesday May 16, 2007
A letter from John Buck to Foreign Commonwealth Office of 16 May 2007 was the subject of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for Ambassador Buck's communications related to the McCanns. This email (or a portion of it) was withheld based on "International relations" exemption: Section 27.1.a.(1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—( a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State
Thursday May 17, 2007
An internal document was sent by the Foreign Office ordering British diplomats 'to avoid offering support' to Robert Murat unless charges were presented against him." (Note: Murat was made an arguido on May 15 and the Foreign Office internal memo was allegedly dated May 17.)
Tuesday May 22, 2007
An email between Portimao and Foreign Commonwealth Office of 22 May 2007 was the subject of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for Ambassador Buck's communications related to the McCanns. This email (or a portion of it) was withheld based on "International relations" exemption: Section 27.1.a. (1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—( a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State
Thursday May 24, 2007
An email between Portimao and Foreign Commonwealth Office of 24 May 2007 was the subject of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for Ambassador Buck's communications related to the McCanns. This email (or a portion of it) was withheld based on "International relations" exemption: Section 27.1.a.(1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—( a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State
Ambassador Buck, consular officials and British police had an "informal" meeting with the McCanns "over tea." Reports stated that the McCann's travel plans were up for discussion. The following day Portuguese police issued a detailed description of the "possible suspect".
Reports were that ""...The British embassy duly applied pressure on the Portuguese authorities to find more flexibility in their secrecy laws..."
Friday May 25, 2007
Ambassador Buck met again with the McCanns and British police.
Portuguese police issued detailed description of possible abductor.
Sunday May 27, 2007
News emerged that the McCanns had held discussions with Gordon Brown
Personal intervention of Gordon Brown was reported. Gordon Brown was reported to have urged police to give more public details after the McCanns voiced their concern about the lack of disclosure by Portuguese detectives.
June 18, 2007
A Foreign Commonwealth Office internal email of 18 June 2007 was the subject of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for Ambassador Buck's communications related to the McCanns. This email (or a portion of it) was withheld based on "International relations" exemption: Section 27.1.a.(1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—( a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State
June 19, 2007
An email between John Buck and Foreign Commonwealth Office (FCO)/ Portimao of 19 June 2007 was the subject of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for Ambassador Buck's communications related to the McCanns. This email (or a portion of it) was withheld based on "International relations" exemption: Section 27.1.a.(1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—( a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State
June 21, 2007
An email between Foreign Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Foreign Commonwealth Office (FCO)/ Lisbon of of 21 June 2007 (19b) was the subject of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for Ambassador Buck's communications related to the McCanns. This email (or a portion of it) was withheld based on "Personal Information" exemption: Section 40 (2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
September 10, 2007
Ambassador John Buck was replaced as the British Ambassador to Portugal by Alexander Ellis. It was announced that Buck had "left the diplomatic service".
The press release stated that Mr. Ellis would take up this appointment with "immediate effect."
On September 21, newly-arrived British Ambassador Alexander Wykeham Ellis informed US Ambassador Hoffman that "it was the British police that developed the current evidence against Madeleine McCann's parents."
Ellis informed the Ambassador that former British Ambassador John Buck had accepted a private-sector position at a UK gas company and that his departure had nothing to do with bilateral issues.
"Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working cooperatively".
He commented that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors.
October 2007
In October 2007 an individual made an FOI request (under the Freedom of Information Act 2000) to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information concerning communications between the then Ambassador to Portugal John Buck and the Portuguese police on the subject of the disappearance of the child Madeleine McCann. Reference: FS50188322.
Some information was released straight away and some information was withheld.
Since that time the Foreign Office released "most" but not all of the requested information. (Withheld information noted above.)
The Information Commissioner's Office reviewed the matter and in March 2009 decided that the Foreign Office had complied with section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act but had breeched section 1(1)(b) of the Act by failing to provide the information within the specified time limit.
The commissioner upheld the Foreign Office decision to withold some information, stating that the public interested in withholding the information outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The ICO also decided that personal information withheld was done so correctly.
December 3, 2007
A memo was leaked to the Belgian newspaper La Dernière Heure regarding a diplomat's concerns about the case.
Questions have been raised as to whether the memo may have been written by Ambassador Buck or someone in his office, although diplomat's name was not published in the newspaper articles.
The leaked memo was routed through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels
The leaked memo was sent "just days" after Madeleine disappeared.
The leaked memo warned the Foreign Office of concerns regarding the McCanns and warned of the risks of siding with the McCanns in public.
The diplomat immediately had doubts after being sent to Praia da Luz due to what he considered to be inconsistencies in their testimonies and "confused declarations" as to the whereabouts of the McCanns and their friends on May 3.
The memo mentions instructions "from London" that consular staff "overstretch their authority and put pressure on Portuguese authorities."
The memo refers to orders sent the previous day from the Foreign Office in London commanding embassy staff to provide all possible assistance to the McCanns and that the McCanns "had to be "accompanied at all times during any contact with the Portuguese police" by a member of consular staff or by British police officers sent out from the UK.
He also mentioned their lack of cooperation with the Portuguese police
The memo was sent *from the Algarve* to the Foreign office days after Madeleine "went missing"
Quote: "With the greatest respect, I would like to make you aware of the risks and implications to our relationship with the Portuguese authorities, if you consider the possible involvement of the couple. "Please confirm to me, in the light of these concerns, that we want to continue to be closely involved in the case as was requested in your previous message."
The Belgian report also stated that Portuguese detectives believe it is possible Madeleine died as the result of an accident on May 3 in the family's holiday apartment and that her parents hid and later disposed of her body with the help of their friends.
They said it is highly significant that almost all of the diplomats involved at the outset have now been taken off the case.
December 12, 2007
Reports emerged that British diplomats had been ordered by the Foreign Office to "avoid offering support" to Robert Murat.
The claim was made that an internal Foreign Office memo had sent the instructions three days after Murat was made an arguido (Note: May 15 is the date Murat was made an arguido.)
According to Spain's El Mundo newspaper, the order was justified due to the "specific nature of the case".
The internal memo allegedly stated that British diplomats were to "avoid offering support" to Murat unless charges were pressed against him.
http://newsoutlines.blogspot.com/p/british-foreign-office-timeline.html
Thought they were heard crying on the Tuesday? Was it moved to the Wednesday as a reason/excuse for leaving the patio door unlocked the next night for,as Kate said,Madeleine to come find them if she awoke? Odd that she states the door was left unlocked for that very reason and yet when she finds her missing is adamant she has been abducted. Why wasn't her first thought that Madeleine had indeed woken and gone in search of her parents?
"Had there been a warning note in the apartment, do we think the McCanns would have left the patio door unlocked on the night they went to the other side of the pool to have dinner away from their children? One would be tempted to think they would make sure everything was firmly locked up," Summers said.
Swann & Summers didn't rule out the possibility of the orderly abductor, no doubt the illuminati at the Yard haven't either.
Genius.
"Had there been a warning note in the apartment, do we think the McCanns would have left the patio door unlocked on the night they went to the other side of the pool to have dinner away from their children? One would be tempted to think they would make sure everything was firmly locked up," Summers said.
Swann & Summers didn't rule out the possibility of the orderly abductor, no doubt the illuminati at the Yard haven't either.
Genius.
"I know they (McCanns) had been coming, using the front door, erm, which is the door with the key, to go in and check the children.
On the Thursday night, about, erm, you know, whether I would feel happy leaving, leaving a door unlocked, but that was the only time I'd heard Kate sort of almost saying, question whether they should do it or not." (FP)
And then Maddy disappeared. How extraordinary!
Some might say they're not suspects which translates as we don't want a circus whilst we're conducting our investigation ta very much %£&)**#
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Indeed, Most Extraordinary!
But just forget that bottom bit PF, Smithman doesn't exist.
Going back to the eerily similar statements of the Smith family, what do you think the likelihood was of them, after 3 weeks
a) being able to produce an efit of the waiter/waitress who attended them at the Dolphin restaurant that night
b) being correctly able to describe the clothes each member of the group was wearing that night
The mute doppelganger was seen in a hurry carrying a Maddy lookalike 200 metres away from the crime scene. Must be difficult for detectives to work out if that lead is worth following or not in light of suppressed efits @)(++(*
Wonder if any of the staff in Kelly's bar would have recognised an efit of any member of the Smith family?
I doubt it very much as it seems the staff on duty on the night of the 3rd couldn't remember seeing them there at all ... despite the fact that a party of nine around 10:00pm would probably have had something memorable about them if only numbers.
I believe only one member of staff was interviewed, and that was in Sep 2007, so some 4 months later. Folks in Kelly's had no reason to believe it was connected to Madeleine until the Smith revelations were published. I don't know the date, but it could not have been close to 3 May 2007, and after that, as Kelly's is usually busy, one night merges into another.
Kelly's is normally staffed by more than one person, so I suspect there is a source missing.
If the statement on file is accurate, the bar person interviewed was misled. In the sense that she was asked if she had seen the Smith's that night.
Despite knowing a lot about the case, and about the Smith sighting, I wouldn't recognise the Smiths if I bumped into them, so asking the question above does not help.
According to the statement the police did not say that the Smith party was 4 adults and 5 children - just did you see the Smiths.
After that, the police photocopied the receipts for the period of 8pm to midnight on 3rd May. These show a very quiet night. If they had done it the other way round, and said - your receipts show it was a very quiet night - do you remember a group of 9 people - the chances are they would have got more than 'don't remember' as an answer.
No sign of the SY efits on either the official campaign website or the Madeleine Facebook page and now, what seems, a concentrated effort by the inner sanctum to discredit Smith sighting.But they were in the Telegraph on line.
Interesting times ahead methinks.
No sign of the SY efits on either the official campaign website or the Madeleine Facebook page and now, what seems, a concentrated effort by the inner sanctum to discredit Smith sighting.
Interesting times ahead methinks.
You are telling me that there are McCann supporters who have claimed the McCanns are ALWAYS right and all other independent witnesses are always wrong?? If there are they must be in a very small minority. Most McCann supporters understand that there are likely to be some inaccuracies and discrepancies in witness statements, whoever has given them.
The McCann's & their support group, it would appear, have never been especially keen on that sighting which speaks for it's self.....
...which speaks for it's self.
If you say so Alfie old boy @)(++(*Yes I do say so, and the fact that you are only able to LOL at me, rather than defend your faulty logic rather confirms that I am correct. 8(>((
I seem to have missed something, PF.
What difference would it make, where the cot was on Wednesday?
It was in the children's room on Thursday.
What would the McCann's gain from lying about that?
Well they wouldn't, unless it was in some way important.
A perfect illustration of your point is Carol Tranmer's realisation at her rogatory interview that she was in error over dates given in her original statement ... nothing deliberate ... nothing suspicious ... just human error.
If three or four individuals give concise unshakeable statements, all matching, all slotting one into the other with no discernible discrepancies ... I think that would be the time for suspicion.
So consistent statements are suspicious and differing statements are proof of verisimilitude. Talk about screwed up logic.
The sisters Ms. Naomi and Ms. Brigid Elizabeth Irwin.
Booked at Tapas 20:30 on 3rd May, the same time as T9. All of them that were asked denied seeing them.
They were guests at the OC April 28th to May 5th 2007, Apartment 010B
No statements released.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_608.jpg)
Nicole Cox/Raj Balu Room G603 were booked into the Tapas Restaurant at 8.00pm but they didn't dine there. They used the takeaway service.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RAJ_BALU.htm
*snip*
With relation to my movements on Thursday, May 3, 2007, between 18:00
and 23:00.
At 16:45 my son was lunching with other children in the Tapas area.
From 15:30 onwards, the bar was full, as normally happened, with the majority of people there. Neil and E*** were having a drink with my wife and I. We had a table reserved in the restaurant for that night, but they were not able to arrange a table and for this reason we decided to leave our table and ate together in their apartment using takeaway service.
My wife left the bar and took our son back to the apartment and E***, Neil’s wife, also took her children to their apartment. Neil and I stayed at the bar drinking and talking with J*** J***** and A*** W******. Neil and I eventually left the bar after 19:00. I don’t remember if we left together or not.
I returned to my apartment and got ready to go out for dinner.
Around 19:00, together with my wife and son, we headed to the Berry apartment. When we arrived, Neil was having problems in assembling a cot, which was placed there for my son. We had to head to the Mark Warner service desk and they sent someone to help us.
Sometime between 19:45 and 20:00, Neil and I left the apartment and went to the Tapas restaurant. We ordered our food and had a drink whilst waiting for the food to arrive. We returned around 20:15-20:30.
We returned the Berry apartment and all of us ate on the veranda.With regard to the question as to how I became aware a child had gone missing and my involvement in the searches;
After 22:00 we were still sitting on the veranda in the Berry apartment. We heard noises downstairs and afterwards found out that a child had disappeared. My testimony dated 6th of May 2007 related the details of the conversation we overheard and the information regarding the paper that Neil and I used in the searches. I cannot add any more details save those which have already been given in this testimony.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wonder what conversation he overheard?
And maybe the Irwins didn't go for their evening meal either, despite being on the reservations list.
____________________________________________________________________
REPORT OF EXTERNAL WORK [Investigation Activity]
Date: 2007/05/04 Location: Praia da Luz
Entity that determined the activity: superiorly determined
Funcionario [employee] that executed it: Miguel P*** and Duarte F****, Inspector
-------- JERONIMO TOMAS RODRIGUES SALCEDAS (Phone No "91 768 ####) - bartender:
- He saw the missing Madeleine, for the last time, yesterday at 16.45h next to the restaurant;
--------- JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA (residing at Rua Ilha Terceira, no. 15, Lagos, Telephone No 91 277 ####) - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.
- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;
- Of the times in which this group had dined in that bar it is [was] often [for] someone from the group to go to check at the apartments the state of the children (their offspring) who were sleeping there.
- He did not see any person with blonde "rastas", while he was working (16h00 and 00.00). ----------
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
IMO blonde rasta man was not Sperrey. I believe he was somebody staying illicitly in one of the g/f apartments near 5a.
I saw a man that was coming from the road and was headed to the reception. I believe that he was with a woman but I cannot be precise of any detail about her. It was a tall Caucasian man, with blonde hair in 'rasta style' tied with a band instead of free flowing. (JW)
Sounds like the Sperreys to me and this sighting was at around 9 so it matches for time. Their table booking was 9pm.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
Steve Carpenter said Mike Sperrey was a friend of Gerry's and Carpenter's and Sperrey's statements haven't been released in the public files.
"I went to the MW reception and I met two of Gerry's surfing friends who told me that Madeleine had been abducted on the previous night."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/pp/Michael_James_Sperrey.JPG)
What was he doing in the Tapas restaurant at that time? I thought he was pacing the streets with his kid.
Or is this a different day?
What was he doing in the Tapas restaurant at that time? I thought he was pacing the streets with his kid.
Or is this a different day?
It was Rastaman who was alone. SC saw Sperrey with his wife later on.
JW in his rog said he saw the Sperreys entering the reception. They had a reservation at 9 in the tapas restaurant. Jes went to the toilet and Mike Sperrey was there.
"When I arrived, I headed to the WC near the pool area. He also was in the WC but appeared to be a taking a long time. I do not remember if he was still in that place when I left."
I prefer to believe the statement taken the day after Madeleine went missing.
But you don't practice the same where the McCanns statements are concerned.
How Extraordinary!
Where have I disputed the McCann's original statements?
Where have I disputed the McCann's original statements?
You believe Kate's curtains & the wind blowing the door shut, don't you?
I believe K & G's first statements were written in accordance with the interpretation of the translator.
Like the proverbial (wise) Monkees "I'm a Believer". In most cases.
I believe K & G's first statements were written in accordance with the interpretation of the translator.
Like the proverbial (wise) Monkees "I'm a Believer". In most cases.
Is there any further information as to where this blood sample (object JRB/1) was collected from?
The Forensic Science Service(R) received the [above] objects on 7 August 2007, in sealed, secure packages.
On 8 August 2007, the Forensic Science Service(R) received a piece of cloth/cotton wool (object MJN994) from Leicestershire Constabulary. That object was inside a sealed package.
On 12 October 2007, the Forensic Science Service(R) received a blood spot in a cardboard frame (object JRB/1) from Leicestershire Constabulary. That object was inside a sealed package.
Analysis
*snip*
Oral swabs of reference material
CB/1 Gerald McCann
CB/2 Kate McCann (nee Healy)
SBM/2 Amelie McCann
SBM/3 Sean McCann
My colleague, Sarah Vraitch, furnished me with copies of reference DNA profiles of the above individuals. Each of the profiles was different from the others.
FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 6
14 Pedro Vilhena
286/2007CRL22 Fernando Viegas
286/2007CRL23 Lino Henriques
286/2007CRL24 Bruno Antunes
The DNA profiles of these persons were obtained from their respective samples. The profiles were not only different from each other, they were different from those of the McCann family.
JRB/1 Madeleine McCann
From this sample was obtained a DNA reference sample that was different from those of her immediate family, described above. This DNA profile was the same as that obtained from possible spots of saliva existing on the pillowcase (SJM/1).
Is there any further information as to where this blood sample (object JRB/1) was collected from?
What point are you trying to make, P/F?
Saliva found on a pillowcase from 5a was found to be a LCN DNA match for a blood sample provided to LP, and was identified as being Madeleine's rather than another member of her family.
Why is this a strange witness statement?
It wasn't provided to LP but by LP.
The pillowslip ... Dr McCann returned from Portugal to collect something of Madeleine's for DNA tests.
The blood spot ... Madeleine's neonatal heel prick test, maybe??
The blood spot is a reference sample, so it's quite likely to be the heel prick test, I would have thought.
The blood spot is a reference sample, so it's quite likely to be the heel prick test, I would have thought.
Speculation. You don't know the source of blood JRB/1 but it matched Madeleine's DNA from her pillowcase SJM/1.
Neither the DNA profile of Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN matches that from the pillowcase (SJM/1) and therefore in my opinion, neither Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN can be the source of this profile.
What point are you trying to make, P/F?
Saliva found on a pillowcase was found to be a LCN DNA match for a blood sample provided to LP, and was identified as being Madeleine's rather than another member of her family.
Why is this a strange witness statement?
Yes saliva was from Madeleine's pillowcase so of course it was her DNA and it matched the blood spot. So I want to know what's the blood source JRB/1? There's nothing else on JRB/1 I can find only these objects:
Receipt of the objects
Some of the objects that were collected from apartment 5A and from a vehicle, Renault 'Scenic' (matricula 59-DA-27), hired by Gerry e Kate McCann when they were in Portugal. Those objects were delivered to the Forensic Science Service(R) by the Police Science Laboratory.
I think Brietta has cleverly provided you with the probable source.
Yes saliva was from Madeleine's pillowcase so of course it was her DNA and it matched the blood spot. So I want to know what's the blood spot source JRB/1? There's nothing else on JRB/1 I can find only these objects:
Receipt of the objects
Some of the objects that were collected from apartment 5A and from a vehicle, Renault 'Scenic' (matricula 59-DA-27), hired by Gerry e Kate McCann when they were in Portugal. Those objects were delivered to the Forensic Science Service(R) by the Police Science Laboratory.
Carana and I have made a suggestion which in the lack of any information in the files is as good as any; could be a hospital or a home visit sample since it was sealed.
All it really did was confirm that the DNA on the pillowslip was Madeleine's, so I think it was from an identifiable source.
She doesn't know the source of JRB/1 so it's speculation. The DNA report should make it clear. Absolute shambles!
You could be correct but the report should make it clear what the source is.
The point, as I see it is that the saliva and the blood match each other, not not the rest of the family.
JRB/1 Madeleine McCann
From this sample was obtained a DNA reference sample that was different from those of her immediate family, described above. This DNA profile was the same as that obtained from possible spots of saliva existing on the pillowcase (SJM/1).
A neonatal blood spot sounds a likely source for the blood - I believe they are kept for a number of years.
As it matched saliva on the pillow, then it can't be a wrongly filed blood sample.
If not Madeleine's, who's is the DNA ?
If it is Madeleine's DNA, why does it not match the rest of her immediate family?
,A person's DNA is different from all others, so why specify that it was just different from the rest of the family?
Very ambiguous wording for a scientific report
,A person's DNA is different from all others, so why specify that it was just different from the rest of the family?
Very ambiguous wording for a scientific report
They were testing the samples against DNA belonging to the 4 other family members in the Rothley household. Madeleine's blood sample matched the saliva sample on the pillowcase. It did not match the DNA of the other 4.
Therefore, the FSS had Madeleine's actual DNA profile against which to compare all other forensic DNA evidence.
AM 4 May 2007
On my insistence, Gerry and Dave went out again to look for some sign of Madeleine. They went up and down the beach in the dark, running, shouting, desperate to find something; please God, to find Madeleine herself. It was only much later that Gerry told me he’d already started remembering cases of other missing children and acknowledging the horrific possibility that Madeleine might not be found. (Madeleine)
On the contrary she may have been under the rocks. Did you check there Gerry? I know where I would take the dogs.
The dogs investigated, according to the files ... the dogs found nothing, according to the files ... rather suggests there was nothing in the nature of what they were trained to find to be found.
I wonder at the way you mock the horrors experienced by the parents of a missing child.
If you read this thread I started you will find that all strange activity and articles about the case are included. There is no other thread to share these articles so they go in this thread that I created.
I know it was created by you PF, but we are wondering away from the files to speculative writings are we not?
CT'We drove from there until Luz where my aunt lived, humm...I don't remember but I believe that we also went shopping for her before our lunch and we had coffee when we arrived, humm... It should have been 11 or around noon when we arrived, humm... after we went to pick her up. We met up, drank a coffee on the terrace and after went out to lunch in Lagos, which is humm... in the old part of the city. There is a restaurant there whose specialty is fish and she really wanted to go there. We returned around 3:30, sat on the terrace, had a coffee and stayed in the apartment until around 6:30 and left around 6:30 that same day.
DC1485'This was on Sunday, right'
CT'No, this was on Thursday.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm
*snip*
DC1485'This on Thursday, I understand.
CT'This all happened on Thursday.
DC1485'Yes.
CT'We left around 6:30. It was already dusk because at that time of the year, it gets dark quickly in Portugal. We drove to our hotel and arrived at 8:30, eight or 8:30.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunset was 8.23pm on 3rd May, dusk at 8.56pm.
I wonder roughly what time the Tranmers really did leave Mrs Fenn's apartment & whether they saw any of the Tapas group on their way to dinner that night?
There doesn't appear to have been a coordinated effort to either gather or collate the evidence of the various people who were out and about in the vicinity of apartment 5A among whom were some who helped in the search for Madeleine.
There really should be records of who was where and when; who else they may have seen in the vicinity when they were on the street prior to and after Madeleine was reported missing.
Perhaps some may have confided in Mrs Murat who very helpfully set up her own stall to gather such information.
In itself a remarkably odd situation to be tolerated by a force rightly jealously guarding such protocols to itself as far as later private investigation firms were concerned.
I wonder if anyone did give information at her stall and if so, what happened to it.
According to Jenny Murat, she gave the collected information to Rob. Who then passed it on to the PJ.
Until there is any evidence to the contrary, my assumption is that they were both just trying to help find a missing child.
I would have done the same in the circumstances.
It was obvious that there was a language issue.
Contrary to mythology, all Portuguese in the Algarve are NOT fluent in English, let alone able to understand different accents, which can become even stronger in a panic situation and therefore would be gibberish to someone with just an understanding of basic phrases in an unfamiliar language.
The GNR didn't understand English (and few in the PJ seem to have done); tourists were about to go back home; casual workers - possibly without valid work permits - may have noticed something, but were unwilling to make statements... or even local druggies may have noticed something.
No one in some kind of irrelevant illegal situation would want to come forward... even if it just concerned an administrative issue of a temporary work permit that had expired, let alone anything else.
Andrew Graystone talks to Janet Kennedy 2008
AG: Now Janet, you must’ve been closely involved with them, at that stage, although you were in England at the time. Was there a point where Kate and Gerry decided that they needed to be proactive with the media – to positively engage with the media?
JK: I — I’m not really sure myself about that, you know — at the time — It’s not something I’ve discussed with them. My own feeling of the first few days was, you know, just try to get in touch with the Foreign Office, you know, to try and get some kind of help in terms of it being a foreign country.
I mean I know that the morning after it happened I — Kate, you know, had phoned me because — this sounds terribly trivial — but they were due home the next day and she’d booked an online shop. I won’t give the name of the — of the company — of the supermarket — and, you know, she sort of wanted something to be done about it. So I just went up to the house, you know, and erm — to sort that out. And, you know, I just wasn’t prepared for the media interest at the house itself.
Not functioning &%+((£
AG: So this story as it were — the media story — began to roll without any initiative, at first, from Kate and Gerry and their friends in Portugal. Is that – is that how you recall it?
JK: That’s how I recall it. I mean we had a phone call from Gerry in the early hours of the morning after, you know, the whole thing was discovered – and I would have said that they would have been just too distraught to have had any thought at all about, you know, ‘how we’re going to approach the media?’ — It would’ve been the last thing in their minds…
Media the last thing on their minds &%+((£
She was aware that from the first moment either Gerry or the others insisted in affirming that
Madeleine had been abducted always using the word "abducted" instead of disappeared, and all
showed great interest that the press were informed of the situation.
--- The deponent recalls further that she entered the bedroom where Madeleine had been
sleeping. Remembering it now that the door was closed.
The interior of the room was dark. The external blinds were down, light entering [the room] only
through the holes in them. The windows were shut and the curtains were slightly open. Gerry
accompanied her on this visit, also with GNR officers and he said that it had been him who had closed
the window because the babies were still sleeping there, which the deponent noticed to be true.
Gerry stated that when he he was told about Madeleine's disappearance he had found there the
window and the blinds open, and the curtains fluttering [as in the wind].
The deponent recalls that there were beds in the middle of the room and
that those being used by the babies were aligned [with each other] and therefore she thought it
strange that someone had taken Madeleine from the bed where she had been sleeping as far as to
the window because from that layout [of the beds] there had been no space to get past. The
deponent opened the wardrobes in the bedroom in order to check if possibly Madeleine wasn't
hidden in there. Then everyone left the bedroom someone having returned to close the door. The
deponent then spent some time in the room [lounge], with the GNR officers, Gerry and other
members of the group there who were in a large whirl, who came in, left and spoke on the mobile
phone. She noticed that none of the group, including the child's parents, were occupied with the
search. The mother was seated on the bed in the couple's bedroom, the father accompanied her
and the police officers and the other members of the group entered, left and spoke on the phone,
appearing to her to be preoccupied with informing the press about what had happened.
--- She thought that the child's mother was dejected [downcast; depressed; discouraged], the
father was preoccupied [worried] and also asked whether the media had been advised or the
search dogs had been arranged [organised]. Of the others she only recalls that Fiona and her
husband, Payne, were hysterical with the situation. At a given point, soon after the PJ officers
arrived, the parents took the twins from their beds where they were sleeping, taking them up to the
apartment on the first floor. At Kate's request the deponent took from the babies' cots the dolls and
a blanket also up to the first floor. The cots stayed with only the mattresses [in them].
--- The deponent wanted also to state that around 03h00 Madeleine's parents asked [about] the
presence of a priest in the area. They didn't explain their reason for wanting a priest but the
deponent found it strange since there was no indication that the child was dead and it is usual only
in those circumstances that one would ask for a priest.
--- At a certain point the deponent translated a statement from one of the ladies of the English
group, the lady she indicated as being dark-skinned. This lady said to the police officers, and the
deponent translated, that she had seen a man walking [passing] in the street, possibly with a child
in his arms. The deponent thought this strange because she was convinced that when she had
seen the man the lady was positioned in an area that had no line of sight to the area where she
would have seen the man. She doesn't know exactly where the lady was positioned when she saw
the man pass, but she knows that she indicated having seen him passing in the road that was in
front of the bedroom window where Madeleine had been, walking in the direction of the road of the
road that then goes to the Baptista supermarket.
--- Questioned as to the clothing the members of the English group had worn that night she states
that she only recalls that Fiona wore a green blouse, that Gerry wore a dark shirt and that Fiona's
husband wore plain trousers, cream, she thinks.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
Agreed - surely the onus should be on the poster to explain what is supposedly so strange about these statements?
Very tedious and lazy posting technique which imo lends nothing to the debate on the forum.
We can all read what is already in the public domain ... so what is the point in lifting something (sometimes dubious content to say the least) and posting it without remark.
If we all did it it the forum would become the most boring on the net.
Agreed - surely the onus should be on the poster to explain what is supposedly so strange about these statements?
Very tedious and lazy posting technique which imo lends nothing to the debate on the forum.
We can all read what is already in the public domain ... so what is the point in lifting something (sometimes dubious content to say the least) and posting it without remark.
If we all did it it the forum would become the most boring on the net.
People can think for themselves about the facts posted. Kate concerned about priests, supermarket deliveries and sitting on the bed instead of searching. She did finally go out when nobody else was! Have SY been doing any mobile tracking?
Very tedious and lazy posting technique which imo lends nothing to the debate on the forum.
We can all read what is already in the public domain ... so what is the point in lifting something (sometimes dubious content to say the least) and posting it without remark.
If we all did it it the forum would become the most boring on the net.
Your previous three lengthy posts have elicited zero response, PF, and that is par for the course ... I think you are in danger that other posters are just ignoring your posts because there is actually nothing to be said and everyone has their own opinion anyway.
When you are thinking for yourself you seem to be fixated with ground hog day.
Priest? Supermarket deliveries?? Sitting on the bed instead of being out demanding entry to every domicile in PDL to search it? and as far as the phones are concerned not only did the PJ check them out, SY did too ... and guess what? that checking led them to sending out letters of request to interview persons of interest in Portugal.
SY can track down this family friend in Portugal who got them mobile phones if they want to do some real detective work.
I mean err it may well have been SA gave us a contact of someone that was a friend of the family in Portugal who err could get us mobile phones because Kate and Gerry you know hadn't got any contact, you know way of contacting, their batteries were running out or something like that so SA had basically said err you know there's, there's these people that we know there and you know that could have been it.' (DP)
From the source you have omitted to cite ...
1485 "Who lent you these phones that SA had organised for you''
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Is it your insinuation that when asked a direct question Dr David Payne refused to answer?
SY can track down this family friend in Portugal who got them mobile phones if they want aome real detective work.
I mean err it may well have been SA gave us a contact of someone that was a friend of the family in Portugal who err could get us mobile phones because Kate and Gerry you know hadn't got any contact, you know way of contacting, their batteries were running out or something like that so SA had basically said err you know there's, there's these people that we know there and you know that could have been it.' (DP)
The revelations over these phones only goes to confirm that the McCanns were not isolated in a foreign domain as has been constantly portrayed. What other facilities were made available to them by this shady so called family acquaintance?
Mores to the point, why is the name of this acquaintance not in the files?
The revelations over these phones only goes to confirm that the McCanns were not isolated in a foreign domain as has been constantly portrayed. What other facilities were made available to them by this shady so called family acquaintance?
Mores to the point, why is the name of this acquaintance not in the files?
Certainly a question for the PJ or even the mysterious NICKED AND WHATEVER who perhaps worked on the transcript which must have been translated from English to Portuguese then translated back to English??
Seems like another translation error.
1485 "The first one, the phone number ends in, and I'll just give you the last four digits.'
Reply "Will you just hang on two secs, this is a bit, okay.'
1485 "It's ****.'
Reply "**** SA.'
1485 "And who's SA''
Reply "Err he is err my, Fiona's sister LW, that's her husband.'
I think what he was trying to say was.............
Reply "Err he is err my(Brother in law), Fiona's sister L Webster, (SA) that's her husband.'
---------------------------------
I didn't know that they were there, though.
I thought it may be Fiona's brother, LW husband of Diane? Her sister wouldn't be a Webster if married. SA was the aquantance.
Must dig my DVD's out, lol.
Reply “Yeah.”
1485 “The first one, the phone number ends in, and I’ll just give you the last four digits.”
Reply “Will you just hang on two secs, this is a bit, okay.”
1485 “It’s eight, seven, one, three.”
Reply “Eight, seven, one, three… Simon ALDRIDGE.”
1485 “And who’s Simon ALDRIDGE?”
Reply “Err he is err my, Fiona’s sister Louise WEBSTER, that’s her husband.”
1485 “And what sort of a relationship do you have with him?”
Reply “Err a very good relationship. He is err someone that I’ve known for many years, we’ve been to their wedding, they came to our wedding, and err he’s you know a very good friend.”
https://duartelevyen.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/maddie-david-payne-interview-at-leicestershire-police-headquarters-%E2%80%93-part-iiiii/ (https://duartelevyen.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/maddie-david-payne-interview-at-leicestershire-police-headquarters-%E2%80%93-part-iiiii/)
As I thought Anna, another translation error.
It does seem odd to say a sister went to their wedding and visa versa, when they are relatives.
So mysterious were these phones that it seems they were delivered to the police station where David Payne was given permission to collect them and bring them in.
I still think the most perplexing thing about this rogatory statement is at the top of the page ... TRANSCRIPT BY NICKED AND WHATEVER: what on earth is that about?
**snip
01:04:02 1485 "And where were these phones, when did these phones arrive''
Reply "Err when did we get the phones' When we were at the Police Station, err you know as, you know I just asked whether I could just pop downstairs there was someone who's brought us phones and they said yeah, so I quickly popped downstairs, got the phones, and took them back into the Police Station. Err I can't remember if there was any power in them when we opened them up but err so then that was, you know, so the phones were just, you know because we hadn't got any other, anything there, so.'
1485 "And what phones were they' Do you remember what sort of, what make they were''
Reply "Err they were Samsung phones, err and I think they were Vodaphone SIM cards. Err the actual model, I can't tell you the Samsung phone but they were, something like the Samsung three hundred, something like that.'
1485 "Yeah, how many phones were there''
Reply "There was, there was two err and we ended up, err again, we ended up keeping one and Kate and Gerry had one, I think we gave the second one to Kate and Gerry as well after a while but we were err you know because they'd got credit put on to them so we were just using those phones rather than run up the expense of our own phones.'
1485 "Yeah.'
01:05:33 Reply "So err yeah.'
1485 "So the two phones, you've kept one and gave one to Kate and Gerry''
Reply "Kate and Gerry yeah.'
1485 "And do you have the numbers of those phones in your phone''
Reply "I don't, no, no.'
1485 "Where are these phones now''
Reply "Err as far as I am aware that they, you know, remained in Portugal, again''
1485 "With whom''
Reply "With Kate and Gerry.'
1485 "So Kate and Gerry took possession of that second phone which you had''
Reply "Well, they certainly kept the first one, the second one, the second one, sorry, no I think that's rubbish. I think I, I may well have got the, I might have got the second phone. Actually I've got a sneaky feeling when I got home I tried the UK SIM card in it and it didn't work so I could well have got the second phone.'
1485 "So is it likely that this second phone is at your home address''
Reply "Err that is a strong possibility.'
1485 "So two Samsung phones.'
Reply "Yeah, yeah.'
1485 "One is, to your knowledge, still with Kate and Gerry.'
Reply "Yeah.'
1485 "The other one you may well have at your home address.'
Reply "Yeah, yeah.'
1485 "Did you use the phones often''
Reply "Not''
1485 "In Portugal''
Reply "Not a great deal no, no, it was, it was, first of all you know we didn't have any numbers in them already and then with being a Portuguese phone you know it was just a bit more difficult so we, if we ever used them, I mean which wasn't often, we'd perhaps call Kate and Gerry using the Portuguese phone, but it wasn't a kind of religious oh we'll just use the, that Portuguese phone to err you know establish communication.'
1485 "Yeah.'
01:07:23 Reply "Err you know and the other reason that we, we had the, one of the phones is because Fiona didn't have a phone either so you know, so it's like she had the use of the other phone as well.'
1485 "Right, so out of the two of you then, who predominantly used that phone''
Reply "I'd say Fiona.'
1485 "Fiona''
Reply "Yeah.'
1485 "And has it been used since it's been in the UK''
Reply "No.'
1485 "Okay, okay.'
Reply "And I'm just trying to think you know how much, you know the, the, I can't remember you know obviously we were there for four weeks after but when the actual credit ran out, because I remember the credit running out and not being able to actually put anymore on even though it's supposed to be quite straight forward but again, you know whether that was after, you know, three weeks of being out there or whatever I can't remember.'
1485 "Yeah, how many times do you think you topped it up then''
Reply "I don't, I don't think we did, I don't think I did. I don't think I could work out how to do it to be honest.'
1485 "So when both of them arrived both of them had credit on them''
Reply "They put, I think they put, I think err I think they put forty pound credit or forty euros, you know, which seemed to last a lot longer than the amount of credit we were (inaudible) we were using our own err mobile phones.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
1485 "And do you have the numbers of those phones in your phone''
Reply "I don't, no, no.'
1485 "Where are these phones now''
Reply "Err as far as I am aware that they, you know, remained in Portugal, again''
1485 "With whom''
Reply "With Kate and Gerry.'
1485 "So Kate and Gerry took possession of that second phone which you had''
Reply "Well, they certainly kept the first one, the second one, the second one, sorry, no I think that's rubbish. I think I, I may well have got the, I might have got the second phone. Actually I've got a sneaky feeling when I got home I tried the UK SIM card in it and it didn't work so I could well have got the second phone.'
1485 "So is it likely that this second phone is at your home address''
Reply "Err that is a strong possibility.'
1485 "So two Samsung phones.'
Reply "Yeah, yeah.'
1485 "One is, to your knowledge, still with Kate and Gerry.'
Reply "Yeah.'
1485 "The other one you may well have at your home address.'
Reply "Yeah, yeah.'
Did they investigate the person who actually got the two mobiles (purchased where?) and the numbers? We don't know so it should be investigated.
PF, I think you are getting a bee in your bonnet over nothing ... the explanation for the phones is there for all to see ... and there is no doubt that all the phone pings emanating from these and any other phones held by the group would be thoroughly checked out.
Seems Simon Green is David Paynes brother in law now, according to phone list.
08:09:56 Simon Green, DP's Brother-in-Law, calls David Payne for 71 seconds
He rings a few times, perhaps sorting those pesky Samsung phones out for DP.
4078 “Simon ALDRIDGE.”
Reply “Yeah.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm)
David Middleton
Information Technology Manager
SANDTOFT HOLDINGS LIMITED
Belton Road Sandtoft
Doncaster, DN8 5SY
Tel: +44.***.787.***
www.sandtoft.co.uk (http://www.sandtoft.co.uk)
Following a number of changes the company was passed to the next generation, being managed by Simon, Nick and Kate Oldridge at the time of the partial sale to Wienerberger in 2008.
http://www.wienerberger.co.uk/sustainability-at-sandtoft-works.html (http://www.wienerberger.co.uk/sustainability-at-sandtoft-works.html)
Number three in the UK roof tile market, after big businesses Redland and Marley, Sandtoft supplies more than 10 per cent of all roof tiles used in Britain. It generally makes annual pre-tax profits of between £500,000 and £1m, on annual turnover now at £40m. (December 21, 2005)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b23abd92-71c5-11da-836e-0000779e2340.html#axzz3SDb4NomF (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b23abd92-71c5-11da-836e-0000779e2340.html#axzz3SDb4NomF)
Simon, Nick and Kate Oldridge, not Aldridge???
,
Oldridge is the name.
So who is Simon Aldridge? Diane said he is her son in law. I haven't seen the name Oldridge in any file.
It's Simon Oldridge so the files are incorrect.
Simon D Oldridge / Louise K Webster 2002 Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS16
Simon Dominic Sinclair Oldridge / Louise K Oldridge 2003/4 Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS8
Sandtoft will retain its present management structure with brothers Simon and Nick Oldridge remaining in their current positions. Sandtoft employs 417 people and generated revenues of approximately GBP 42 million in 2007.
http://www.sandtoft.com/resource-centre/latest-news/press-article/SandtoftAndWienerbergerHaveJoinedForces.html?ContentID=76
Simon’s brother err is a gentleman called Nick and Nick’s wife Nicky had got friends out in the Algarve and they were just you know basic people who were just willing to help us. (DP)
So someone who used to be a department head at the BBC asks someone they know in Portugal to provide the Tapas group with a couple of mobile phones, under the noses of the PJ.
What point are you trying to make?
The two mobiles and their phone records need to be investigated in an unsolved case. These extra mobiles were given to them on 4 May so they were urgently required. One for David Payne and the other for the McCanns. You've heard of the expression - To Leave No Stone Unturned.
454 Simon Green
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/29SEP9/LM-29-9-9.jpg)
My but don't they look cheery !
Are you of the opinion that the PJ failed to turn the stones on their turf, in the form of mobiles phones, which were passed to K & G by an anonymous do-gooder?
Show me where it is in the files?
The last three to see Madeleine got new mobiles &%+((£
I'm surprised that you bother with such childish cheapshots Faith. I thought better of you.
Are you suggesting the McCanns should never smile again? How irrational and how awful for their twins if that's the case.
There are just as many piccies around showing the McCanns looking as if they are going through hell. - the fact that 'supporters' don't post them is a sign of their mature approach to the subject IMO.
Nick Oldridge is Simon Oldridge's brother and his wife is Nicola Rajska, the lady who arranged for the phones to be delivered to David Payne. Here she is launching her new business venture with her sister-in-law. Miss Rajska used to work for the BBC commissioning programmes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2557281/Re-usable-wrapping-paper-Wrag-Wrap-items-stars-receive-goody-bags-Oscars.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2557281/Re-usable-wrapping-paper-Wrag-Wrap-items-stars-receive-goody-bags-Oscars.html)
I don't understand why the name Aldridge is used in the files and not Oldridge. I know you will say it's only one letter, but on my keyboard the A & O are nowhere near each other.
You say 3 mobiles? I think it was 2. You posted the phone list, didn't you see the calls made from Samsung mobiles?
22:02:08 xxxx (Probably one of the two Portuguese Samsung mobiles given to David Payne) texts David Payne
22:08:54 xxxx (Claimed Samsung) texts David Payne
All the others say probably or claimed, Is that your own wording or files? As you give no link!
The times of the calls are in the files. That samsung info was added later by the researcher.
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Timetables-of-SPECIFIC-TIMES-ACTIVITIES/Timetable-AFTER-Disappearance-With-phone-info-1-803669.html
Hideho, A researcher, so not the files. think I'll stick to the files.
Hideho, A researcher, so not the files. think I'll stick to the files.
The guilty always lie to save themselves and that is the truth. When you know that lies are easy to spot because it connects to the truth. Saying nothing is your best option.Oh Pathfinder, you are funny.
Oh Pathfinder, you are funny.
Would you like to outline the so- called- lies, please.
Read my theory.
"What we do now believe is that the abductor had very probably been into the room before Gerry’s check."
"The abductor would hardly have been expecting to see Jane walking towards him as he escaped, let alone have anticipated that Gerry would be standing talking round the corner."
The yard have gotten rid of Tannerman. They are after Smithman 8((()*/
How do you make out that those are lies, Pfinder?
They are the thoughts and beliefs at that moment in time of one or both Mccanns, if they said them
Read my theory.
"What we do now believe is that the abductor had very probably been into the room before Gerry’s check."
"The abductor would hardly have been expecting to see Jane walking towards him as he escaped, let alone have anticipated that Gerry would be standing talking round the corner."
The yard have gotten rid of Tannerman. They are after Smithman 8((()*/
Read my theory. It is based on facts connected to evidence (lies have been said). I'm saying the yard are on the right path. Smithman was carrying Madeleine and his identity will have to be revealed if they want to solve it. The yard released the efits.
Where has it been categorically determined that the efits have been constructed from information given months after the event by the Smiths who could not provide a detailed description a fortnight after the event?
There are credible eye witnesses whose statements were not followed through to conclusion ... I think SY would have concentrated on those capable of supplying the required information as opposed to those on record, who could not.
They would have investigated that sighting and connected it to the facts.
They would have investigated that sighting and connected it to the facts.
I'm sure they will have checked out all sightings and the descriptions witnesses were able to provide of facial features; that is something the Smiths were unable to provide when they made their statements a fortnight after the event,
It is therefore strange & confusing that the PJ did not investigate that sighting & connect it to the facts back in 2007. It's almost as though it was invisible.
It is therefore strange & confusing that the PJ did not investigate that sighting & connect it to the facts back in 2007. It's almost as though it was invisible.
Amaral was planning it when he was removed.
Martin Smith new Sept 2007 statement:
"When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle." (TOTL)
So what did Paulo Rebelo do with this very last piece of the puzzle the rest of which Goncalo Amaral had studiously ignored in the time it had been in his hands since May?
So what did Paulo Rebelo do with this very last piece of the puzzle the rest of which Goncalo Amaral had studiously ignored in the time it had been in his hands since May?
Studiously ignored ? Amaral brought several of the Smiths back to PDL and conducted a reconstruction with them. I believe they were also included in the people to be interviewed again through the rogatory process although there was some mix up and this didn't inthe end happen.
Recently I watched the Panorama programme screened in November 2007. It was interesting to note that it was reported in this :
'BILTON: Now what follows is the crucial part of the story. The police have told Panorama that the timeline, the chronology of the events of the night of May 3rd, are still at the heart of this investigation. They say that there are many inconsistencies in what the group who were having dinner with the McCanns the so-called 'tapas night' have said in their witness statements.'
So in November 2007, many months after Amaral had left the case, the investigation being lead by his successor Rebelo was still focusing on the same elements identified by Amaral during his tenure ie inconsistencies in the tapas timeline.
Back in November 2007, the Tapas group (and others) hadn't been interviewed by the UK police - all they could go on was what appeared in the summary statements noted by PT officers, with the help of whoever was around to help interpret.
He was looking for fresh new evidence.
Oct. 13th 2007
PORTUGUESE police were reported today to have begun a new search of the apartment Madeleine McCann vanished from.
Officers were said to have started combing the two-bedroom flat at 7am, in a fresh hunt for clues. They are believed to have stayed there for at least five hours.
The reported search comes as a new policeman was appointed to lead the inquiry in Portugal.
Paulo Rebelo has been brought in from Lisbon to replace Goncalo Amaral, who was sacked last week after being caught briefing a journalist against the McCanns.
Oct 15th 2007
DETECTIVES will scour a ten-mile area around Praia da Luz and a reservoir surrounded by forests as the search for Madeleine McCann gains new intensity this week.
In the first large-scale searches for more than three months, Paulo Rebelo, the new head of the investigation, has not ruled out using divers at the 2.5 mile wide reservoir.
Mr Rebelo has overseen a fresh look at the McCann holiday apartment and has ordered a root-and-branch review of the five-month investigation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAULO_REBELO.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LETTER_KATE_MCCANN.htm
Meanwhile the McCanns were doing
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2009/09/mark-hollingsworth-investigates-mccann.html
Born in Belgium in 1951, Exton had been a highly effective undercover officer for the Manchester police. A maverick and dynamic figure, he successfully infiltrated gangs of football hooligans in the 1980’s. While not popular among his colleagues, in 1991 he was seconded to work on MI5 undercover operations against drug dealers, gangsters and terrorists, and was later awarded the Queen’s Police Medal for ‘outstanding bravery’. By all accounts, the charismatic Exton was a dedicated officer.
While Exton, however flawed, was the genuine article as an investigator, Halligen was a very different character.
(http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/PA-17898154.jpg)
Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.” He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.
Of course he was looking for evidence. That was his job being a well respected police officer. What evidence implicating Madeleine McCann's parents in her vanishing did he find?
It would be worth noting from the cite you have posted that Rebelo found it impossible just to take up the investigation from the point that Goncalo Amaral left off ... like the PJ and SY after him ... he found it necessary to return to the very beginning.
The initial information from the crime scene was so compromised and botched it had to be looked at again but interestingly without the assistance of dogs.
Do you know offhand how often Goncalo Amaral visited the crime scene ... the only photographic evidence I have seen is from his documentary where for some reason he was illustrating that the front door lock could not be slipped with a credit card.
Now that we know the situation regarding the keys ... wonder why he did that?
Amaral was planning it when he was removed.
Martin Smith new Sept 2007 statement:
"When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle." (TOTL)
"Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.” He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund."
That doesn't make sense to me, I'm afraid.
Was this "confidentiality" agreement anything more than the blurb in a standard contract / termination notice of one?
Something had been handed over to LP and the PJ, either directly or via the Fund ... was it a complete report, or a partial one?
If it was complete, I see no reason why the Met didn't get a copy from either police force or the Fund. If what had been handed over was a partial report, then I could understand that the Met was seeking whatever was potentially missing.
The Met did apparently send off letters of request to the authorities of numerous countries. Obtaining a full report may or may not have been the object of one of them if the contents were held outside of the UK and required judicial intervention.
Of course he was looking for evidence. That was his job being a well respected police officer. What evidence implicating Madeleine McCann's parents in her vanishing did he find?
It would be worth noting from the cite you have posted that Rebelo found it impossible just to take up the investigation from the point that Goncalo Amaral left off ... like the PJ and SY after him ... he found it necessary to return to the very beginning.
The initial information from the crime scene was so compromised and botched it had to be looked at again but interestingly without the assistance of dogs.
Do you know offhand how often Goncalo Amaral visited the crime scene ... the only photographic evidence I have seen is from his documentary where for some reason he was illustrating that the front door lock could not be slipped with a credit card.
Now that we know the situation regarding the keys ... wonder why he did that?
Just because Amaral was removed doesn't mean too much. The same detectives were working on the case and if you look at the images of Rebelo and his team at 5A they were investigating Eddie's findings.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/apartment5arebelo.jpg)
(http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/00380/SNN3007A_682_380633a.jpg)
It was a good idea to check, IMO. But what did they find? Nothing.... Not even any synthetic fibres.
It seems that Clarence Mitchell was just casually hanging around Leicestershire police station when he met Gerald McCann.
In relation to how I met Gerry and Kate McCann and what my relationship with them is: I met Gerry at the end of May 2007 when he returned to the UK after his daughter's disappearance. It was a circumstantial meeting at Leicestershire Police station. At the time I was working as part of the Consular Assistance Group, representing the foreigners department. I as asked to return to Portugal with Mr McCann, where I met his wife. Later I became the McCann family's representative and I developed a good personal and professional relationship with them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CLARENCE_EDEN_MITCHELL.htm
What's odd?
Just a happy coincidence that they both happened to be there that's all. Clarence Mitchell flew straight back with him too.The Lord (Blair) moves in mysterious ways.
Just a happy coincidence that they both happened to be there that's all. Clarence Mitchell flew straight back with him too.
Is that odd if he was part of a Consular Assistance Group in a high-profile case involving a missing child overseas?
No, it's odd that he met Gerald 'by coincidence' in Leicester. He hadn't gone there to specifically meet him apparently.
Madeleine No Stone left unturned book about Tuesday night. The night Pamela Fenn heard Maddy crying.
"Only two minor aspects of that evening stand out as differing from the norm. The first was that Russell didn’t join us for dinner. Evie wasn’t well so he stayed with their girls in the apartment and Jane took his meal to him there. The second was that some time in the early hours Madeleine came through to our bedroom, complaining that Amelie was crying and had woken her up. Gerry checked on Amelie, who settled quickly, and we let Madeleine jump into bed with us."
That is it! Unbelievable! Nothing about what time they got back that night? Nothing about the quiz, Gerry flirting, or 6 rapid phone calls from her and then reported crying. Who said this book was written as their defence in a court of law? Say nothing, answer nothing that could incriminate you.
Monday 30 April 2007
The suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces. The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them. The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn. Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time. (Madeleine)
There's no words @)(++(*
Another example of criticising another person for not doing what you would have done - or what you think they should have done.
Unbelievable as it may seem - Kate decided to write her book based on her point of view and her knowledge of what happened - not on what other people - who weren't there - have decided happened and their points of view. How very inconsiderate of her.
There's nothing in it about what they did on Tuesday night. That was quiz night when Gerry asked the girl to join their table. What time they got back? They don't want to reveal anything about that night in the leaving no stone unturned book.
If Kate had put every tiny detail that some sceptics have decided should be in her book - it would be a set of volumes. It was her book to write how she wanted to write it. If people don't like that - then that's nobody's problem but theirs.
You may find out why.
If Kate had put every tiny detail that some sceptics have decided should be in her book - it would be a set of volumes. It was her book to write how she wanted to write it. If people don't like that - then that's nobody's problem but theirs.
Certainly no-one needed to issue a libel writ against her in relation to any of the content of her book.
Certainly no-one needed to issue a libel writ against her in relation to any of the content of her book.
Not yet. Is it being marketed in Portugal?
....
Thus, at the beginning of June, she informed us that the body could have been hidden in the outlet of a sewer pipe at Praia da Luz, or on the cliffs to the west of the beach, where she happened to run. She will say later that this information had been given to her by mediums possessing psychic power. (TOTL)
Kate needs to get a better class of psychic and/or Gonçalo needs to brush up on his Luz.
Luz is a blue flag beach resort. There isn't a sewer outlet. Blue flag and sewer outlet do not go together.
It's strange how people can hold conflicting beliefs. Here we have two doctors who should perhaps value science above all. They turned to religion when their daughter disappeared however. They also turned to what could be termed superstitions - mediums and psychics. Any port in a storm I guess.Do you believe that all doctors are atheists?
It's strange how people can hold conflicting beliefs. Here we have two doctors who should perhaps value science above all. They turned to religion when their daughter disappeared however. They also turned to what could be termed superstitions - mediums and psychics. Any port in a storm I guess.
Not yet. Is it being marketed in Portugal?
SY were checking the pipes.
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/625/media/images/75377000/jpg/_75377543_022587060-1.jpg)
for someone who claims a tragic loss of a young person in your own family you seem very unwilling to show compassion to a couple who have experienced tragedy in theirs...it isn't unusual to turn to god when all else has failed...have you heard of the atheist Christopher Hitchens
Kate needs to get a better class of psychic and/or Gonçalo needs to brush up on his Luz.
Luz is a blue flag beach resort. There isn't a sewer outlet. Blue flag and sewer outlet do not go together.
17 June 2007
Kate said last week, 'This is my job now. I can see this becoming my full-time career, with this whole issue of child welfare and opposing paedophiles'."
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article66597.ece
Less than a fortnight after the event and got her future mapped out.
IIRC it was proved from the phone records that Gerry was elsewhere at the time.
Gerald McCanns phone was in Praia da Luz. However, he had two phones. David Payne had two new PAYG phones delivered on 4th May, one of which he gave to the McCanns.
SY were checking the pipes.
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/625/media/images/75377000/jpg/_75377543_022587060-1.jpg)
Gerald McCanns phone was in Praia da Luz. However, he had two phones. David Payne had two new PAYG phones delivered on 4th May, one of which he gave to the McCanns.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
!0/4/2008
*snip*
1485
'When did you see Kate and Gerald on Thursday, so when was the first time that you saw Kate and Gerry on the Thursday''
Reply
'It would have been sort of late morning when we'd got back from our sailing and we got changed, got some warm things on and we were just sat on the sun loungers by the pool, erm, just having a drink and Kate and Gerry appeared, we offered them a drink, I think they turned down, they either, they'd just had a tennis lesson or had a knock, erm. In fact I think, was it Gerry had had a lesson then and was going into length degree to Kate about his style of tennis and I was joking that Kate was actually listening to this and finding it incredibly boring cos it's the sort of thing, you know, they, as a couple, they did have amazing sort of patience with each other than (inaudible), I wouldn't have that with David talking to me (inaudible), so there was that joke, so yeah I think it was Gerry just had a tennis lesson and Kate might have been having a knock up, but they were in their tennis gear'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Bridget O'Donnell 14/12/2007
Jes and Gerry were playing on the next court. Afterwards, we sat by the pool and Gerry and Kate talked enthusiastically to the tennis coach about the following day's tournament. We watched them idly - they had a lot of time for people, they listened. Then Gerry stood up and began showing Kate his new tennis stroke. She looked at him and smiled. "You wouldn't be interested if I talked about my tennis like that," Jes said to me. We watched them some more. Kate was calm, still, quietly beautiful; Gerry was confident, proud, silly, strong. She watched his boyish demonstration with great seriousness and patience. That was the last time I saw them that day. Jes saw Gerry that night.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it strange that 2 separate couples should converse in such a similar fashion about Kate & Gerry, yet neither mentions the other couple's presence at the pool in their rogatories several months later.
Yes, we know ... we've discussed these phones at some length. Very mysterious they are ... not.
That's as maybe, but Gerald McCann can't be eliminated by his phone being in PdL because he had another one.
The McCanns have not been eliminated on one piece of evidence...it's everything taken together
What evidence is that dave ?
The crime has yet to be determined.
What evidence is that dave ?
The crime has yet to be determined.
the evidence which SY used to declare the McCanns not suspects
Is that because of their belief in abduction dave ?
Since they have singularly failed to find any evidence.
The crime is unknown.
The mccanns played a key part in this case.
They were the last ones to see her alive.
Evidence please that the McCanns were the last ones to see her alive?
They were the last people who claimed to have done so.
Until proven otherwise, THAT REMAINS THE CASE.
Unless of course you believe in fantasies,
When have they ever claimed to be the last people to see her alive? As you are putting this 'claim' forward as something significant and factual - then you need to back it up with evidence.
When have they ever claimed to be the last people to see her alive? As you are putting this 'claim' forward as something significant and factual - then you need to back it up with evidence.
They both saw her before they went to the restaurant and then Gerald had his 'proud father' moment in the apartment later. As far as I know she hasn't been seen since.
You really show a lack of comprehension.
What evidence is there anyone else saw Madeleine.
CITE the evidence. 8(0(*
Your usual 'deflection' tactics, which you always resort to when you can't provide evidence to back up your claims, are duly noted.
Does anyone else think it strange that Madeleine and the twins slept soundly on the Thursday night yet she and Sean cried and cried the previous two nights? What changed?
Does anyone else think it strange that Madeleine and the twins slept soundly on the Thursday night yet she and Sean cried and cried the previous two nights? What changed?
In my opinion it was later on the Tuesday night that the children cried, Kate said Amelie woke crying and woke Sean and Madeleine, it was about 12 o'clock.
In my opinion it was Amelie who woke first, then Sean woke and cried followed by Madeleine shouting 'Daddy' I think it was this night that Madeleine was talking about when she said 'why didn't you come when me and Sean cried'. I don't think Madeleine said 'when Sean and me cried last night' did she as Kate and Gerry were trying to think when they had cried.
Children get confused and Madeleine could have meant the Tuesday night episode as it was the only time Sean and Madeleine were woken up.
A nice story with nothing at all to support it however.Pathfinder has spun a few not-so-nice stories with nothing to support them either - I don't see you criticising him or her! &%+((£
Pathfinder has spun a few not-so-nice stories with nothing to support them either - I don't see you criticising him or her! &%+((£
The Oldfields said they heard no crying and they were next door to the children's room. Matt stayed in on the Sunday and Rachael on the Wednesday and neither heard crying. On the Thursday the twins didn't wake up all night with all the screaming and noise in the apartment. Pamela Fenn heard crying on the Tuesday. If people can't account for their time and what they were doing and when they refused to do a reconstruction to clear up all these unanswered questions it's their problem not mine.That's fine, you just carry on making up your stories, I'm sure no one minds at all. 8((()*/
In my opinion it was later on the Tuesday night that the children cried, Kate said Amelie woke crying and woke Sean and Madeleine, it was about 12 o'clock.
In my opinion it was Amelie who woke first, then Sean woke and cried followed by Madeleine shouting 'Daddy' I think it was this night that Madeleine was talking about when she said 'why didn't you come when me and Sean cried'. I don't think Madeleine said 'when Sean and me cried last night' did she as Kate and Gerry were trying to think when they had cried.
Children get confused and Madeleine could have meant the Tuesday night episode as it was the only time Sean and Madeleine were woken up.
That's fine, you just carry on making up your stories, I'm sure no one minds at all. 8((()*/
Gerald McCann was very keen to make sure that Jeremy Wilkins gave evidence;
Several weeks later, Jeremy received calls from Gerry in relation to gaining permission from him to use his name in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organization employed by the McCanns. They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objection to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one.
Jeremy Wilkins drew a sketch of where the two men stopped and spoke;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif
He also provided a sketch showing where he saw Gerald McCann 'on the Thursday'. It appears to be near the Millenium complex;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_505.jpg
Finally, if it was agreement with the timeline that Gerald McCann wanted, that was not forthcoming;
As stated in my original deposition, I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
They had no objection to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
I too would have had no objection at all to be included had I been a witness.
I too would have been concerned about the method used: and to qualify why I would have been concerned is to realise that I would have been utterly disgusted that the victims of crime, were being forced to use their own investigative resources to continue to search for their daughter ... because the official investigative body had effectively washed their hands of investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
Nothing strange about that.
Gerald McCann was very keen to make sure that Jeremy Wilkins gave evidence;
Several weeks later, Jeremy received calls from Gerry in relation to gaining permission from him to use his name in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organization employed by the McCanns. They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objection to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
He was adamant that he did not see any one else in the area. When spoken to in reference to Jane Tanner walking by, he again stated that he saw no one.
Jeremy Wilkins drew a sketch of where the two men stopped and spoke;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/9of8-ecf89375.gif
He also provided a sketch showing where he saw Gerald McCann 'on the Thursday'. It appears to be near the Millenium complex;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_505.jpg
Finally, if it was agreement with the timeline that Gerald McCann wanted, that was not forthcoming;
As stated in my original deposition, I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
Which is exactly why the McCanns told the story of Madeleine coming through to their bed. Confusion is good Gerry claimed. Your post has just proved it.
If we read Lace's story it is full of 'I think' ;In my opinion'; 'I don't think and 'Could have'. Pure opinion unable to be verified at all.He also gives us lots of detail presented as fact for which there is no evidence. Smithman ran to the wasteground to collect the body he'd placed there earlier in the evening, for instance.
Pathfinder is quoting things able to be confirmed. He quotes what Matt, Rachael and Mrs Fenn say; he mentions the twins sleeping through the turmoil on the Thursday. All verifiable by reference to their statements.
When did Gerry claim that 'confusion is good'? Cite please.
Gerry McCann: "The current level of activity, you know, I think you're absolutely right, there is a huge amount of innuendo which is being presented in various ways, suggesting that there may be evidence or facts behind it and there are none, and our opinion of what happened that night has not changed. We know certain facts, unfortunately because of the criminal investigation, we can't divulge them, and I want to make it absolutely clear, the reasons why we're not divulging the information; we will not make it easier for the perpetrator to cover their tracks. The police have all the information and we have bared our soul to them, and we'll continue to assist them in any way possible, but, you know, we have to keep silent. And, in fact, one of the slight positives in... in all of this is that there is so much rumour about what did and didn't happen, it's actually very difficult, if you're reading the newspapers, watching TV, to know what is true and what's not."
It's an abbreviation for...
That's fine, you just carry on making up your stories, I'm sure no one minds at all. 8((()*/
If we read Lace's story it is full of 'I think' ;In my opinion'; 'I don't think and 'Could have'. Pure opinion unable to be verified at all.
Pathfinder is quoting things able to be confirmed. He quotes what Matt, Rachael and Mrs Fenn say; he mentions the twins sleeping through the turmoil on the Thursday. All verifiable by reference to their statements.
It's an abbreviation for...Quote
Of course I say in my opinion as I was not there.
My opinion is the only one that makes sense to me, Kate McCann was in the room with the children on the Wednesday night so she would have heard if any of the children were awake.
Mrs. Fenn said she heard a child crying, older than a baby, this crying went on for three quarters of an hour. I can't imagine a child crying for that length of time and not waking the other children in the room. Mrs. Fenn said the crying got louder, well if Amelie had woken up with a bit of grizzling then gone back to sleep, and had woken Sean then that would account for that, then Madeleine woke up and cried 'Daddy'.
Why wouldn't you think that Mrs. Fenn could have got the time confused? she said she was watching the news, well maybe the news didn't finish until 11 in which time Amelie could have woken up. Toddlers tend to have a grizzle have a sleep another grizzle etc.
10:30 to 11:45. 75 minutes.
She never told the McCann's that she had heard their daughter crying previously on 1st May because she thought it would just increase their suffering.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
Tuesday 1st May 2007
Kate McCanns mobile was next activated six times, in rapid fire, between 22.16 and 22.27, after she had returned to Apartment 5A after dinner. The antenna traffic proves that these calls were not made to any of the 'Tapas 9'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm
10:30 to 11:45. 75 minutes.
She never told the McCann's that she had heard their daughter crying previously on 1st May because she thought it would just increase their suffering.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
Tuesday 1st May 2007
Kate McCanns mobile was next activated six times, in rapid fire, between 22.16 and 22.27, after she had returned to Apartment 5A after dinner. The antenna traffic proves that these calls were not made to any of the 'Tapas 9'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm
When did Gerry claim that 'confusion is good'? Cite please.
Well the phone records prove Kate McCann was in the apartment at almost half past ten then doesn't it?
I can believe that Amelie and Sean were grizzling alternatively for that length of time, but not that Madeleine cried all that time.
So what if the calls weren't made to the Tapas 9, why would she call them she had just had dinner with them. Kate McCann could have been calling her parents or her friends back home, and as it was late they were short calls.
Tuesday 1st May 2007 is the only night (except, of course, for Thursday 3rd May 2007) that either of the McCanns or any of their friends made calls after dinner.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm
I'm sorry I don't see why that is significant.
Kate McCann made calls on the Tuesday night. Could be these calls were to her parents or other members of the family. It was about half way through the holiday, could have been quick calls to say, holiday lovely etc.
It's relevant because if she was making calls in the apartment she most probably woke Madeleine up. Then just after Pamela Fenn hears crying. I connect evidence.
If Kate McCann had woken any of the children by making the calls then she would have heard that child.
Not if she left the apartment straight after her last call at 10:27. Crying reported from 10:30.
Tuesday 1st May 2007 is the only night (except, of course, for Thursday 3rd May 2007) that either of the McCanns or any of their friends made calls after dinner.Do we know if the calls were sent or received, or both?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm
10:30 to 11:45. 75 minutes.
She never told the McCann's that she had heard their daughter crying previously on 1st May because she thought it would just increase their suffering.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
Tuesday 1st May 2007
Kate McCanns mobile was next activated six times, in rapid fire, between 22.16 and 22.27, after she had returned to Apartment 5A after dinner. The antenna traffic proves that these calls were not made to any of the 'Tapas 9'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm
Don't you find it strange that Mrs. Fenn doesn't mention the fact that Kate McCann came to the apartment and left at 10.27 then the crying started?
Mrs. Fenn said she heard them come home, yet she doesn't say she heard Kate McCann leave at 10.27.
Why you can't imagine Mrs. Fenn being mistaken about what time the crying started I really don't know, she wasn't interviewed until three months afterwards.
That is not from the official PJ files. It is part of a report written by Paulo Reis.
No I don't find it strange. She didn't hear them entering the apartment on 3 May to do their checks so why would she notice that if she is watching tv. That late time she may have heard them because of extra noise being drunk or tv switched off. If you are out drinking from 8:30 then you are going to be pretty drunk by midnight.
No, I'm sorry if Mrs. Fenn could hear a child start to grizzle at about half past ten, 3 MINUTES after Kate McCann left the apartment, then she would have heard Kate McCann leave the apartment.
You say 'if you are out drinking from 8:30 then you are going to be pretty drunk by midnight' that depends on if you know how much Kate McCann drunk that night, who says she drank a lot? Not any waiter or any other witness to that night said that the McCann's were drunk.
Had they been intoxicated the police would have noted it in their statements. However, the consumption of any alcohol by both parents is inappropriate with looking after three young babes in my opinion. Could the consumption of alcohol been the real reason for the wailing mullah incidents?
Kate Healy TUE 1 May from PJ Files - last call 22:27. Crying reported from 22:30
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OutrosApensos13pdf3374Kate1May.jpg)
So, you have never had a glass of wine or two when the children have been put to bed? Or had a B-B-Q and had a drink with friends in the garden?
WITH THANKS TO PAULO REIS: LINK: FOR THE DETAILED ANALYSIS REPORT, IT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND IS NOT PART OF THE OFFICIAL RELEASED PJ FILES.
*snip*
* When the PJ obtained the McCann's mobiles they do not appear to have retrieved deleted data or to extract their contact lists
*None of the telecom records show triangulation co-ordinates but are limited to identifying the single primary antenna on which calls were registered
* The details of over 50 UK subscribers contacted by the Tapas 9 in the critical period, as well as their onward local and international call records, was included in the Rogatory Letter request in December 2007. If this information was provided, it is not in the CD
* A critical link chart (Anexo 37) for Tuesday 1st May 2007 is missing from Inspector Dias's report
These omissions make interpretation of the data difficult but what is available provides an interesting picture. First, it is obvious that the memories in the McCanns mobiles were incomplete and, in Kate McCann's case, selectively deleted.
Thats not what happened. They left and children on their own and went off for a jolly.
The other side of the coin is important in the context of the various theories being promulgated. Had the parents been intoxicated I would find it very difficult to believe they would have had the presence of mind to do what some accuse them of.
Nothing in "Madeleine" about the time they got back? Those rapid succession of phone calls before the reported crying from a witness in the apartment above.
"Only two minor aspects of that evening stand out as differing from the norm. The first was that Russell didn’t join us for dinner. Evie wasn’t well so he stayed with their girls in the apartment and Jane took his meal to him there. The second was that some time in the early hours Madeleine came through to our bedroom, complaining that Amelie was crying and had woken her up. Gerry checked on Amelie, who settled quickly, and we let Madeleine jump into bed with us." (Madeleine)
You said the consumption of any alcohol would be inappropriate with young babies, so it's ok as long as you don't go down the road for dinner is what you are saying?
I don't think it was excusable for them to leave the children, but for you to say it's ok to drink as long as you stay in the apartment, is a bit ridiculous.
They weren't intoxicated, if they had been I am sure the police would have noted it.
You said the consumption of any alcohol would be inappropriate with young babies, so it's ok as long as you don't go down the road for dinner is what you are saying?
I don't think it was excusable for them to leave the children, but for you to say it's ok to drink as long as you stay in the apartment, is a bit ridiculous.
They weren't intoxicated, if they had been I am sure the police would have noted it.
Nothing in "Madeleine" about the time they got back? Those rapid succession of phone calls before the reported crying from a witness in the apartment above.
"Only two minor aspects of that evening stand out as differing from the norm. The first was that Russell didn’t join us for dinner. Evie wasn’t well so he stayed with their girls in the apartment and Jane took his meal to him there. The second was that some time in the early hours Madeleine came through to our bedroom, complaining that Amelie was crying and had woken her up. Gerry checked on Amelie, who settled quickly, and we let Madeleine jump into bed with us." (Madeleine)
Jane didn't take his meal to him there, so there's been a bit of mis interpretation there hasn't there?
The McCanns were definitely not drunk on the 3rd. I was talking about the 1st - no police saw them at midnight that night.
"I actually carried his meals back to the room on that night." (JT Rog)
Thats not what happened. They left and children on their own and went off for a jolly.
The other side of the coin is important in the context of the various theories being promulgated. Had the parents been intoxicated I would find it very difficult to believe they would have had the presence of mind to do what some accuse them of.
The waiter said he held the meal back, and they were saying that he had had a fresh steak cooked for him, the waiter noticed a piece of steak left on the plate when they had all left.
Nothing in "Madeleine" about the time they got back? Those rapid succession of phone calls before the reported crying from a witness in the apartment above.
"Only two minor aspects of that evening stand out as differing from the norm. The first was that Russell didn’t join us for dinner. Evie wasn’t well so he stayed with their girls in the apartment and Jane took his meal to him there. The second was that some time in the early hours Madeleine came through to our bedroom, complaining that Amelie was crying and had woken her up. Gerry checked on Amelie, who settled quickly, and we let Madeleine jump into bed with us." (Madeleine)
We're talking about the night Russell stayed in - Tuesday 1 May. Jane brought his meals to him.
Matt stayed in Sunday
Russ Tuesday
Rachel Wednesday
Good Point. All that running about and hiding bodies if they were drunk?
Thats not what happened. They left and children on their own and went off for a jolly.No you are WRONG, Matthew
The other side of the coin is important in the context of the various theories being promulgated. Had the parents been intoxicated I would find it very difficult to believe they would have had the presence of mind to do what some accuse them of.
One has to remember that this was the penultimate evening before they all returned to Blighty so guards would have been down.Maybe the perps knew that ... and that was one of the reasons they struck that evening?
What an awful end to any holiday. %#&%4%
Maybe the perps knew that ... and that was one of the reasons they struck that evening?
Parents returning home so difficult to persue the case?
If there were any perps that is. For all anyone knows she woke again and this time decided to seek out maw and paw McCann. There are several possibilities as to what happened next but that has its own thread.
eta ...sitting in a tapas restaurant 50 metres from ones apartment has little in common with sitting in ones own secure back garden and especially so when said apartment was right beside the street and simply accessed by opening a little gate. Leaving the patio door unlocked was the height of stupidity in those circumstances. It was an open invitation to anyone observing the comings and goings and who knew that the patio door didn't lock from the outside.
The town appears to have been extremely quiet.
If they had met as many people on the previous evenings when they were walking between the tapas and their respective apartments as they did on the 3rd ... ie no-one ... they must have been relaxed.
They knew nothing of the home invasions concerning British children. They knew nothing of the recent burglaries which had taken place in their apartment block.
I would be of the opinion that as soon as the McCanns discovered that their daughter was missing from her bed and could be found nowhere ... that the crushing realisation of exactly how stupid they had been to leave their children in such circumstances must have been overwhelming.
There is nothing to say that entry was made via the unlocked door.
Kate Healy TUE 1 May from PJ Files - last call 22:27. Crying reported from 22:30
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OutrosApensos13pdf3374Kate1May.jpg)
No you are WRONG, Matthew
They went off for their dinner, not a jolly.
They sat in what was effectively their apartment garden, where there was a good view of the patio windows and patio area of their apartment a tadge over 50 metres away. This patio area had to be crossed, unless entrance was via the parents bedroom patio doors, which is a slight possibility]
The street lamp immediately opposite their apartment illuminated the patio area with a gentle orange light.
The only door unlocked was the patio door and they could see the access to that clearly.
They felt safe.
The wine waiter has confrmed that they were not heavy drinkers despite having "free" wine".
And that they had only consumed a very reasonable amount commensurate with having dinner.
You dont know, Matthew and we dont know either. But * IF * on some nights they had more collectively, it is quite feasible that one of the couple drank little and the other more. many of our friends worked like this.
You are judging something in a bigotted way, Matthew, with very limited information
And please remember, in future, just how close they were and it was like being in their back garden, in an open ended gazebo, despite what others are trying desperately to prove.
I have been there and eaten in that gazebo like structure and it was like being in our back garden at home which inidentally was just about 50 metres long.
I wish some others of you would go and look.
It is important that you only judge when the bushes have just been cut back as was the case on May 3rd. Greenary grows like crazy in Portugal.
I would add that virtually every photograph showing on various sites of the supposed view that the Tapas group had of 5A is disinformation. Cos they are all taken from a different [varying] position
And that false information is unjust and unfair. IMO, it should be removed from Pamalam etc.
Nothing in "Madeleine" about the time they got back or those rapid succession of phone calls before the reported crying from a witness in the apartment above.
"Only two minor aspects of that evening stand out as differing from the norm. The first was that Russell didn’t join us for dinner. Evie wasn’t well so he stayed with their girls in the apartment and Jane took his meal to him there. The second was that some time in the early hours Madeleine came through to our bedroom, complaining that Amelie was crying and had woken her up. Gerry checked on Amelie, who settled quickly, and we let Madeleine jump into bed with us." (Madeleine)
Earlier statements made no mention of anyone checking Amelie;
He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom with KATE as she [K] had told him that one or both twins had cried making much noise.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
on one night, he cannot say which, Madeleine slept in his room in his bed. He thinks it might have been shortly after their arrival at the apartment. Madeleine came to his room saying that Amelie was crying and she couldn't sleep. He thinks that he hadn't heard crying before, and was alerted to this by Madeleine. He does not know if he or his wife comforted Amelie. That night Madeleine slept in his bed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
When asked about the fact her daughter had been crying on the night of the Tuesday for one hour and 15 minutes, between 10:30 and 11:45, she says it is not true. She says that on that night, after midnight, Madeleine went to their room and said that her sister Amelie was crying, and sleep with her and Gerry in their room. She says that before Madeleine appeared in their room, she had already heard Amelie crying, however she did not go to the room, as Madeleine went to the room almost at the same time she head the crying. She does not remember if afterwards she or Gerry went to the childrens' room, however she states that Amelie cried for a short time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Dawn Bullen, is at Tapas restaurant, has a son who attended Toddler's 2 group during the day and is not with his parents at dinner, so can only be at “night crèche” and the Bullens return on May 05 2007.
There can be no doubt. The woman guest who, between 22:05 and 22:15 warns the “night crèche” can only be Dawn Bullen when she goes to pick up OC from the “night crèche”.
We have found the mystery woman: Dawn Bullen.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2pq584j.jpg)
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2015/03/luzs-secret-service.html
"That on 3rd May at about 22.05 she was working at the Mini Club, at the "dinner time period" together with colleagues Charlotte and Amy, when a female individual arrived, whose name she does not know, just that she was the mother of a child there (belonging to Toddlers 2), being a guest who was staying at the resort and who left at the end of the week, who told her that a girl called "Maddie" has disappeared, and that the girl's parents needed help in looking for her."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_608.jpg)
If 10:05 is correct the alarm was raised before 10pm. My theory is 9:55 alarm time.
How do you KNOW that her son was at night creche? His grandparents could have been over in a nerby flat. They might have hda a listening device or have used the half hourly checks.
How do you know? Please share it with us.
And you have posted the Tapas diners. I can see no Dawn Buller. That is not say that she wasn't there, but no proof or indication on that list that I can see.
Please can you tell us why you posted thta list. What has it to do with a "Dawn Buller"
Have I missed something?
Buller is there on the tapas sheet booked at 7pm and her room number. You can get information from that in the files. It's not 100% but it's very likely. She had a child in that Toddler's group. Look at the creche sheets for Otis and signature.
The Bullen booking at the dinner table was for 4.
There are other people within the Mark Warner guest list who fit the criteria but were not dining at the Tapas.
Probably another couple. 4ad = 4 adults IMO.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_j_bvD479ec/VQHcLt2ELKI/AAAAAAAAKr8/wmaNVFJQcik/s1600/bullen1.jpg)
Confirmation of Toddlers 2 group re JW statement. "she was the mother of a child there (belonging to Toddlers 2)"
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PKwQ0S52PdY/VQHAeT9YwgI/AAAAAAAAKrE/ky6Uplhr2Xs/s1600/otis.jpg)
What about the other 8 children on the Toddlers 2 list?
Toddlers group is 2 year old with Sean and Amelie. Mann's child was 3. It's not Carpenter or Edmonds. Patell 4 years old and another 11 months. Cox 17 months. Dawn Bullen could be a valuable witness for SY if she was present when the alarm was raised. They can investigate if it was in fact her and also watch "Evil under the Sun" which they may find enlightening.
My list refers to the children who were in Toddlers 2 - not the people who were dining at the Tapas. You have no idea if the woman collecting her child had been dining in the Tapas or not - only that at some stage, on her way to the crèche, she was made aware of Madeleine's disappearance.
It's a lead that connects so you follow and investigate it. She was there that night and her son is in Toddlers 2.
Perhaps you would lead us all to her statement.
I can't find one in the files.
If it isn't in the files then it doesn't implicate the McCanns or their friends. Simple logic.
See amended above - could be in LP files the McCanns wanted to see.
I'm sure SY have long since reviewed & retaken statements from all the UK holidaymakers in PdL that night. But you can rest assured that, if Mrs Bullen had witnessed anything untoward at the Tapas Bar that night, it would have made its way online into the mythpit.
She could hold vital timeline information. Did she witness the alarm being raised? How long after the alarm did she leave? Did she know the time? It could take her about 5 minutes to walk that distance. The mother arrived at the night creche at 10:05 from JW statement informing them about the disappearance.
I totally agree. But like the Sperry, Carpenter, Irwin, Berry, Balu et al statements taken at the time, they curiously didn't find their way onto the internet.
Who knows-perhaps Mrs Bullen saw an individual lurking around the reception. That wouldn't have done much for the hypothesis - or your theory.
"The careful and critical analysis of the timeline has been absolutely key. Primarily, we are focused on the area between 8.30pm and 10pm." (DCI Redwood)
The timeline is key in Evil under the Sun.
The area is a place, not a time.
You don't know if all witnesses are telling you the truth about the time and where they were so anomalies are investigated.
I agree again. Hence SY re-interviewing individuals late last year who definitely stated they weren't in the area at the time Madeleine went missing.
Gerald McCann made an initial statement on 4th May and a more detailed one on 10th May. His later statement includes two interesting details;
That, between Monday and Wednesday, not knowing the precise date, when they left the residence by the main door, to place the children in the respective creches, MADELEINE left [went] running to the left to the extreme opposite of the residential blocks where they were lodged, playing with the twins. That they had gone down to the furthest point away from those blocks, not knowing exactly how, the three children got into the gardens at the rear [of the blocks]. Then they followed the inside corridor [pathway] at the rear, next to the hedges [fences] up to the street that led to the secondary reception.
After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who would come up on the right-hand side [when viewed] from the ascending direction, both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, about tennis, holidays and children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
The comment about Madeleine and the twins running away and going along the pathway between the apartments and the Tapas enclosure was probably his answer when asked why he thought the sniffer dogs both went that way when tracking Madeleine's scent. Without Gerald's explanation there was no reason for the dogs to go that way. They should have come out of the front door of G5A and turned right, tracking the person seen by Jane Tanner. Thanks to DCI Redwood, of course, we now 'know' that the person seen by Jane wasn't carrying Madeleine, so the dogs would have no reason to track him. It's possible therefore that the dogs were right and the trail they followed was the correct one. Unfortunately Gerald's explanation supported the Tanner sighting and the other route was ignored.
The other strange thing is Gerald's insistence that he crossed the road to speak to Jeremy Wilkins, although Jeremy and Jane Tanner were quite sure that he was next to the entrance to the path. He was so insistent that he made Jane cry during their reconstruction. Why was it so important, I wonder, that he stuck to his version and refused to accept that of the other two? It shouldn't have mattered where they spoke, what difference could it make? Why not just accept that he could have been mistaken? I can only assume that it was important to him.
My conclusion is that Gerald McCann didn't want either himself or his daughter to be associated with that pathway on the evening of 3rd May.
Why would you assume that Gerry made JT cry? She already knew that his recollection of where they stood was different to hers - so it would come as no surprise at all to her to hear him repeat it.
On the other hand she was having to re-live what was undoubtedly one of the most horrendous nights of her life. A situation far more likely to upset her than hearing something which she already knew IMO.
Gerald McCann made an initial statement on 4th May and a more detailed one on 10th May. His later statement includes two interesting details;
That, between Monday and Wednesday, not knowing the precise date, when they left the residence by the main door, to place the children in the respective creches, MADELEINE left [went] running to the left to the extreme opposite of the residential blocks where they were lodged, playing with the twins. That they had gone down to the furthest point away from those blocks, not knowing exactly how, the three children got into the gardens at the rear [of the blocks]. Then they followed the inside corridor [pathway] at the rear, next to the hedges [fences] up to the street that led to the secondary reception.
After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who would come up on the right-hand side [when viewed] from the ascending direction, both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, about tennis, holidays and children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
The comment about Madeleine and the twins running away and going along the pathway between the apartments and the Tapas enclosure was probably his answer when asked why he thought the sniffer dogs both went that way when tracking Madeleine's scent. Without Gerald's explanation there was no reason for the dogs to go that way. They should have come out of the front door of G5A and turned right, tracking the person seen by Jane Tanner. Thanks to DCI Redwood, of course, we now 'know' that the person seen by Jane wasn't carrying Madeleine, so the dogs would have no reason to track him. It's possible therefore that the dogs were right and the trail they followed was the correct one. Unfortunately Gerald's explanation supported the Tanner sighting and the other route was ignored.
The other strange thing is Gerald's insistence that he crossed the road to speak to Jeremy Wilkins, although Jeremy and Jane Tanner were quite sure that he was next to the entrance to the path. He was so insistent that he made Jane cry during their reconstruction. Why was it so important, I wonder, that he stuck to his version and refused to accept that of the other two? It shouldn't have mattered where they spoke, what difference could it make? Why not just accept that he could have been mistaken? I can only assume that it was important to him.
My conclusion is that Gerald McCann didn't want either himself or his daughter to be associated with that pathway on the evening of 3rd May.
It seems the PJ did specifically ask about the route taken by the sniffer dogs;
Confronted with the information that the [tracker] dog teams had followed/followed the scent trails in which, purportedly, MBM had not passed the intersection where she indicated a man carried a child, she affirmed, immediately, that she was not lying, maintaining the honesty of her initial version.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
That doesn't address the issue. Tannerman walked towards the front of block 6. The search & rescue dogs followed scent to the car park at the rear of block 6 (a route we know she walked along to the crèche). Why weren't the dogs taken inside Block 6?
That's your issue, not mine. My question is why did Gerald McCann insist that he crossed the road to speak to Jeremy Wilkins when two other witnesses say he didn't? Why was it so important? Is he just a control freak who's always right or is there possibly another reason?
Sometimes it's hard to accept your memory may be playing tricks on you. To me, the most important issue is that Jez, an independent witness, puts himself & Gerry in the street where JT says she passed by them. IF JT is lying about seeing Tannerman, that's not Gerry's issue.
I agree with you that people may not have correct recall and that the important thing is that they were there. In that case why didn't Gerald McCann accept that he could have been wrong? Surely the exact place where they spoke wasn't important? His insistence suggests that he attaches some importance to where they stood.What convoluted logic is this? Can you please explain what Gerry stood to lose by saying he did see JT as far as JW's testimony is concerned...?
The PJ responded to Gerald McCann's 4th May statement in which he mentioned speaking to Jeremy Wilkins very quickly. They faxed Leicester police on 7th May asking for Jeremy Wilkins to be interviewed. In response, Wembley police were phoned by Leicester police and they faxed Jeremy Wilkin's statement to Leicester police on 7th May at 21.16; it was passed back to the PJ the same day.
Did Gerald McCann know what Jeremy Wilkins said in his statement? This is a possibility IMO as Leicester police seem to have been happy to share information with them. If he did have knowledge of it, then he had a problem.
Jeremy said he didn't see Jane Tanner pass by. Jeremy's statement was important to Gerald because it confirmed the checking of the children. Jane's sighting was important as it upheld the abduction thesis. If Gerald said he didn't see Jane either he would have diminished her sighting. If he said he did see her he diminished Jeremy's evidence.
Perhaps his solution was to move the meeting across the road, so that he could agree with Jeremy and it was then more believable that they didn't see Jane. This suggests to me that Jane didn't pass the two men when they were talking next to the passageway. I believe Jeremy Wilkins. He spoke to Gerald McCann next to the entrance to the passageway and Jane Tanner didn't pass them in my opinion.
What convoluted logic is this? Can you please explain what Gerry stood to lose by saying he did see JT as far as JW's testimony is concerned...?
What convoluted logic is this? Can you please explain what Gerry stood to lose by saying he did see JT as far as JW's testimony is concerned...?
If a witness later had come forward and said they had seen the scene from their balcony and Tanner hadn't gone by, what then ?
That doesn't address the issue. Tannerman walked towards the front of block 6. The search & rescue dogs followed scent to the car park at the rear of block 6 (a route we know she walked along to the crèche). Why weren't the dogs taken inside Block 6?
If a witness later had come forward and said they had seen the scene from their balcony and Tanner hadn't gone by, what then ?Is that the same as G-Unit's explanation?
I did.Not really. Jez's statement confirms Gerry's check on the children, so if Gerry said he'd seen JT, what changes?
That is the short cut to the creche which Madeleine used. They also crossed there to enter the tapas area at tea time from the creche. It's not surprising the dogs tracked her scent to there. To suggest a getaway car was parked there is complete madness and no evidence. To park opposite where they were coming out to do their checks.
That after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically, next to apartment block 5A and 5, the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he headed in the direction of block 4, returned around block 5, and came down a road that exists between this block and the leisure area (pools, restaurants, etc). He turned right; in the direction of the aforementioned apartment and headed toward the main road. There, he crossed the street and next to the wall of block 6, turned right, and headed toward the contiguous parking area. More concretely, he headed next to a light post and sniffed the ground around that post. After this, he crossed the street again and headed toward the access zone to the restaurants and pool area, sniffing the door which was closed at that time. He again went to the parking zone, and at that point, lost the scent.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html
I agree with you that people may not have correct recall and that the important thing is that they were there. In that case why didn't Gerald McCann accept that he could have been wrong? Surely the exact place where they spoke wasn't important? His insistence suggests that he attaches some importance to where they stood.
The PJ responded to Gerald McCann's 4th May statement in which he mentioned speaking to Jeremy Wilkins very quickly. They faxed Leicester police on 7th May asking for Jeremy Wilkins to be interviewed. In response, Wembley police were phoned by Leicester police and they faxed Jeremy Wilkin's statement to Leicester police on 7th May at 21.16; it was passed back to the PJ the same day.
Did Gerald McCann know what Jeremy Wilkins said in his statement? This is a possibility IMO as Leicester police seem to have been happy to share information with them. If he did have knowledge of it, then he had a problem.
Jeremy said he didn't see Jane Tanner pass by. Jeremy's statement was important to Gerald because it confirmed the checking of the children. Jane's sighting was important as it upheld the abduction thesis. If Gerald said he didn't see Jane either he would have diminished her sighting. If he said he did see her he diminished Jeremy's evidence.
Perhaps his solution was to move the meeting across the road, so that he could agree with Jeremy and it was then more believable that they didn't see Jane. This suggests to me that Jane didn't pass the two men when they were talking next to the passageway. I believe Jeremy Wilkins. He spoke to Gerald McCann next to the entrance to the passageway and Jane Tanner didn't pass them in my opinion.
A lot of it is just water under the bridge now since that nice DCI Redwood (Ret'd) fragged "Tannerman The Abductor" in October 2013. Jez's statement that he stood nattering to Gerry between 20:45 and 21:15 remains current though.
Where does that leave us one wonders?
That's my point. Why was Jeremy Watkins statement so important to Gerald McCann that he was prepared to upset Jane Tanner by saying he didn't see her? He was also very keen for his investigators to have access to Jeremy's evidence. We know the time of the encounter doesn't help Gerald, because it's so vague. Jeremy didn't see Jane or crechman so it's not that. The only thing that Jeremy provides really is a sighting of Gerald McCann near his apartment during that evening. Is that important?
That's my point. Why was Jeremy Watkins statement so important to Gerald McCann that he was prepared to upset Jane Tanner by saying he didn't see her? He was also very keen for his investigators to have access to Jeremy's evidence. We know the time of the encounter doesn't help Gerald, because it's so vague. Jeremy didn't see Jane or crechman so it's not that. The only thing that Jeremy provides really is a sighting of Gerald McCann near his apartment during that evening. Is that important?
That's my point. Why was Jeremy Watkins statement so important to Gerald McCann that he was prepared to upset Jane Tanner by saying he didn't see her? He was also very keen for his investigators to have access to Jeremy's evidence. We know the time of the encounter doesn't help Gerald, because it's so vague. Jeremy didn't see Jane or crechman so it's not that. The only thing that Jeremy provides really is a sighting of Gerald McCann near his apartment during that evening. Is that important?You want the world to believe that someone saw the abductor plus child leaving the vicinity of the apartment to deflect from the fact that actually it was you walking around with a dead child later that evening. Whose statement is more important to establishing that it weren't you wot dunnit - Janes's or Jez's?
You want the world to believe that someone saw the abductor plus child leaving the vicinity of the apartment to deflect from the fact that actually it was you walking around with a dead child later that evening. Whose statement is more important to establishing that it weren't you wot dunnit - Janes's or Jez's?
Neither statement is much cop as an alibi for what may or may not have happened between 45 minutes and 75 minutes later.Perhaps you'd be better off addressing your comment to Faith and G-Unit who are tying themselves up in knots trying to rationalise why Gerry "insisted" on where his position on the pavement was that evening and why he "upset" Jane Tanner later by claiming he never saw her walk by.
Perhaps you'd be better off addressing your comment to Faith and G-Unit who are tying themselves up in knots trying to rationalise why Gerry "insisted" on where his position on the pavement was that evening and why he "upset" Jane Tanner later by claiming he never saw her walk by.
That's my point. Why was Jeremy Watkins statement so important to Gerald McCann that he was prepared to upset Jane Tanner by saying he didn't see her? He was also very keen for his investigators to have access to Jeremy's evidence. We know the time of the encounter doesn't help Gerald, because it's so vague. Jeremy didn't see Jane or crechman so it's not that. The only thing that Jeremy provides really is a sighting of Gerald McCann near his apartment during that evening. Is that important?
It could be that it gives weight to the claim that he was checking on his children - whether he was or wasn't.
I agree with you that people may not have correct recall and that the important thing is that they were there. In that case why didn't Gerald McCann accept that he could have been wrong? Surely the exact place where they spoke wasn't important? His insistence suggests that he attaches some importance to where they stood.
The PJ responded to Gerald McCann's 4th May statement in which he mentioned speaking to Jeremy Wilkins very quickly. They faxed Leicester police on 7th May asking for Jeremy Wilkins to be interviewed. In response, Wembley police were phoned by Leicester police and they faxed Jeremy Wilkin's statement to Leicester police on 7th May at 21.16; it was passed back to the PJ the same day.
Did Gerald McCann know what Jeremy Wilkins said in his statement? This is a possibility IMO as Leicester police seem to have been happy to share information with them. If he did have knowledge of it, then he had a problem.
Jeremy said he didn't see Jane Tanner pass by. Jeremy's statement was important to Gerald because it confirmed the checking of the children. Jane's sighting was important as it upheld the abduction thesis. If Gerald said he didn't see Jane either he would have diminished her sighting. If he said he did see her he diminished Jeremy's evidence.
Perhaps his solution was to move the meeting across the road, so that he could agree with Jeremy and it was then more believable that they didn't see Jane. This suggests to me that Jane didn't pass the two men when they were talking next to the passageway. I believe Jeremy Wilkins. He spoke to Gerald McCann next to the entrance to the passageway and Jane Tanner didn't pass them in my opinion.
Ridiculous to assert Jane Tanner was upset by Gerry's insistence ... it is quite clear from watching the video that had no bearing on the extreme distress she felt when reliving what she believed was Madeleine's abduction ... and as was said - the important thing was not what Gerry and Jez didn't see - but what Jane did see.
To paraphrase Hamilton Burger "counsel is speculating".
Jeremy Wilkins could have been more precise about the time he spoke to Gerald McCann if he had asked his wife what time he arrived back at their apartment;to quote Alice verbatim "To paraphrase Hamilton Burger "counsel is speculating" ".
Jes returned to our apartment just before 9.30pm.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
He must have parted from Gerald at just before 9.25pm then, if we allow five minutes for him to reach his apartment.Gerald probably arrived back at the table at 9.25pm at the earliest. He says he left to check the children at 9.05pm.
to quote Alice verbatim "To paraphrase Hamilton Burger "counsel is speculating" ".
All based on what people said in signed statements, except for Bridget O'Donnell, but she put it in print.Yes, you are speculating based on what was said in statements and in an article.
to quote Alice verbatim "To paraphrase Hamilton Burger "counsel is speculating" ".
Who is Alice Verbatim?. I shrink from the question about Alice in the style of Chubby Brown. Perish the thought there will be another 24 years of this.Surely in 24 years time you will have run out of weak wisecracks? We live in hope!
Last "call" from Kate's phone? What you've shown is a list of antenna pings. At least back then, differnt antennae would roam to pick up the strongest signal and register it as a ping, whether or not you'd touched your phone or not.
Could you clarify?
What you've posted are antennae pings. Back in those days, I used to have loads of pings for no particular reason, including from rival companies, even if I hadn't even touched the damned phone (although I'd get charged).
Is there something in particular to examine?
So you don't think it's strange? 6 rapid ones in succession just before the crying started. Lots early the next morning and no records of any on Monday 30 April? Looks like phone calls to me.
I'm not sure what you find odd, for the moment.
Look at the activity after 11pm on 3 May. They are phone calls or texts to family/friends. So the other times on other days suggest the same.
How so? What you posted are pings. Obviously there was contact after the disappearance, but what are you trying to demonstrate about the time prior to that? That everything ping from a mast corresponded to a phone call / text message? Sorry, I don't follow.
"We were hoping that she was just in a bush hiding." (KM) 17:17
"We were hoping that she was just in a bush hiding." (KM) 17:17
8)--))
I've not watched that video before WS, I'm at 7:03 and already the first thing which has attracted my attention are the number of sightings by independent witnesses of men loitering in the vicinity of the apartment who were never traced and eliminated from the inquiry.
What ineptitude allowed these strangers to be airbrushed from the subsequent ongoing investigation to have all available resources concentrated on following British senior officers and reinforcing the theory of parental involvement??
People littering in a street does not make them abductors and/or burglars.
What a weird concept, people loitering in the street.
Well I've never seen that. %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
So mccann and the one called jez were loitering in the street................................. 8)-)))
If Gerry claims he was talking to Jez for a short time at 9.10 why did it take Jez another 15 minutes to get back. Where did he go with his pram for 15 minutes when his apartment was only 50 metres away. His estimate time of 8:45 to 9:15 is not very accurate. That was another reconstruction that was required.
"Jes returned to our apartment just before 9.30pm." (Bridget O'Donnell)
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
From : Jes Wilkins (<email address quoted>)
Sent : 16th April 2008
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Re : Re-enactment questions
Thanks Stuart,
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
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
Dear Stuart.
Apologies for the late reply.
We gather now that at least Jez Wilkins, Matt and Rach and Dave/Fi are not going/able to make the re-enactment. Given the prosecutor's requirement for all to be in attendance or none at all, and the absolute nature of the planned date, the decision appears to be academic ...
I hope you are well.
Best wishes,
Russell & Jane
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
Please do not be so disingenuous.
The only witness who saw Gerry and Jez 'loitering' was Jane Tanner.
That there are many independent reports of individuals showing particular interest in the McCann apartment is very well documented ... but you know that, of course.
Isn't it funny that the truth seekers are interested only in theories which can be twisted to suit their version of the truth.
The fact remains ... these people were never traced ... interviewed ... and ruled in or ruled out of the inquiry and all the deflection in the world won't change that truth.
People littering in a street does not make them abductors and/or burglars.
What a weird concept, people loitering in the street.
Well I've never seen that. %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
So mccann and the one called jez were loitering in the street................................. 8)-)))
I've not watched that video before WS, I'm at 7:03 and already the first thing which has attracted my attention are the number of sightings by independent witnesses of men loitering in the vicinity of the apartment who were never traced and eliminated from the inquiry.
What ineptitude allowed these strangers to be airbrushed from the subsequent ongoing investigation to have all available resources concentrated on following British senior officers and reinforcing the theory of parental involvement??
Any abductor worth his salt would surely avoid being seen in broad daylight loitering and gazing longingly at the apartment he was going to target?
In fantasy Luz land he does. He just stares at it where anyone can see him and provide efits to the police to catch him 8(0(* You can observe a place from a long distance away believe it or not.
Any abductor worth his salt would surely avoid being seen in broad daylight loitering and gazing longingly at the apartment he was going to target?
Any abductor worth his salt would surely avoid being seen in broad daylight loitering and gazing longingly at the apartment he was going to target?
Precisely.
An abductor by their very nature would not want to be identified or observed committing a crime.
If Gerry claims he was talking to Jez for a short time at 9.10 why did it take Jez another 15 minutes to get back. Where did he go with his pram for 15 minutes when his apartment was only 50 metres away. His estimate time of 8:45 to 9:15 is not very accurate. That was another reconstruction that was required.Ask Faithlilly to define "just before 9.30", that might be the answer you're looking for. @)(++(*
"Jes returned to our apartment just before 9.30pm." (Bridget O'Donnell)
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
From : Jes Wilkins (<email address quoted>)
Sent : 16th April 2008
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Re : Re-enactment questions
Thanks Stuart,
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
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
Dear Stuart.
Apologies for the late reply.
We gather now that at least Jez Wilkins, Matt and Rach and Dave/Fi are not going/able to make the re-enactment. Given the prosecutor's requirement for all to be in attendance or none at all, and the absolute nature of the planned date, the decision appears to be academic ...
I hope you are well.
Best wishes,
Russell & Jane
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
Who is saying it was the abductor who was watching 5a? It could have been someone passing the info on.
In the UK the police ask the public if they have noticed anyone hanging around before a crime was committed, these people usually come forward without the police having to contact them. Though sometimes it is the witnesses who describe anyone they see is helpful in finding these people.
In the Claudia Lawrence case for example, witnesses have come forward to say who they saw leading up to the disappearance of Claudia.
The way you mock and ridicule what these witnesses have seen really shows you haven't a clue about how the police operate.
Just sheer prejudice, Lace.
Witnesses reported seeing people in the vicinity of the McCann apartment whose behaviour caught their attention; when Madeleine disappeared, they reported what they had seen to the police as was their duty, and gave descriptions of the persons seen ~ job done.
Procedure then would have been to trace and eliminate these people from the inquiry ... as you say, that is how it works.
That DCI Redwood was putting out appeals to trace the men seen by witnesses proves that the initial investigation neither bothered to look for them, nor did they trace them ... and that is an inexcusable disgrace.
The sheer prejudice on view, is the attack on the Portuguese police.
However, that is nothing new.
Can you tell me exactly how having people hanging around streets is potential evidence of abduction.
and how can you confirm the reliability of these 'witnesses' seeing anything of importance other than seeing people in a street ?
Now what a revelation is that ? ?>)()<
So the sceptical view is that the police should ignore eye witnesses and should just ignore the reports they give ... quite intriguing.
Eye witness to what ? People hanging around ?
Isn't it possible the man seen looking into the garden of 5a was simply being nosey and passing the time until his ride to work turned up ? And perhaps the guy in the stairwell was having a sneaky ciggie somewhere where his wife wouldn't see him ?
Whadda ya think Brietta ? Plausible ?
of course it's possible...but these people should be traced and excluded...you seem to belong to the lazy amaral school of detection.......
didnt the McCanns refuse to let Emna Loach's mockumentary, which included descriptions of several of the sightings, be shown in Portugal ?
I see that the OFM webmaster is now directing Facebookers who see anything detrimental to the McCanns on the Internet to report it to OG as it' spreads rumours and misinformation' and apparently stops Madeleine beings found. Does the silly woman really think that having to sift through a ton of emails from post menopausal is really a good use of OG's resources ?
So the sceptical view is that the police should ignore eye witnesses and should just ignore the reports they give ... quite intriguing.
Err no! But maybe the fuzz accounted for the folk and found it not relevant. But of course the "not relevant" is a bit of stumbling block in certain quarters. Were you a Tony Blair fan perchance? he was once in favour of a law that allowed the Sweeney to run someone in because they looked as though they might do something hookey.far more likely that amaral and his team ignored the other leads because they misunderstood the dog's evidence
Who is saying it was the abductor who was watching 5a? It could have been someone passing the info on.
far more likely that amaral and his team ignored the other leads because they misunderstood the dog's evidence
Err no! But maybe the fuzz accounted for the folk and found it not relevant. But of course the "not relevant" is a bit of stumbling block in certain quarters. Were you a Tony Blair fan perchance? he was once in favour of a law that allowed the Sweeney to run someone in because they looked as though they might do something hookey.
Eye witness to what ? People hanging around ?
Isn't it possible the man seen looking into the garden of 5a was simply being nosey and passing the time until his ride to work turned up ? And perhaps the guy in the stairwell was having a sneaky ciggie somewhere where his wife wouldn't see him ?
Whadda ya think Brietta ? Plausible ?
One thing the Portuguese police had in abundance were (the real and accurate) files on Madeleine McCann's disappearance. They have files which were not published on the internet. Therefore any information on these guys would be therein.
By a process of deduction ~ based on the fact that DCI Redwood was making appeals for information on all of these people reported by witnesses to have been in the vicinity of the apartment ~ it is apparent that the 'fuzz' had neither accounted for these folk or found them irrelevant.
A huge failure in the investigation ... and if you will not recognise the inherent incompetence in that ... it says a lot.
It would be up to the police to rule these people out, they haven't come forward have they?
Lets see, if say April Jones little friend hadn't seen April get into that car, and a witness said she saw a man standing about where April went missing, are you saying that this man who was seen shouldn't be found and ruled out?
Or it is just the Madeleine McCann case where these things are not supposed to happen?
Precisely, Lace.
In the scenario to which you refer, the man should have been traced to determine if he was the perpetrator or not, and to determine if he had seen anything which might have been useful in tracking down the perpetrator.
The fact that witnesses came forward to say they had seen a man, does not mean he was connected to the crime, but that has to be determined by detective work ... and it seems no-one bothered until DCI Redwood did.
The initial investigation floundered on the lead detective's theory ... the fact that all avenues of investigation hadn't been followed through in preference of that is indicative to me of his unsuitability for the task of searching for a missing child.
Precisely, Lace.
In the scenario to which you refer, the man should have been traced to determine if he was the perpetrator or not, and to determine if he had seen anything which might have been useful in tracking down the perpetrator.
The fact that witnesses came forward to say they had seen a man, does not mean he was connected to the crime, but that has to be determined by detective work ... and it seems no-one bothered until DCI Redwood did.
The initial investigation floundered on the lead detective's theory ... the fact that all avenues of investigation hadn't been followed through in preference of that is indicative to me of his unsuitability for the task of searching for a missing child.
Your biased opinion.
The PJ could find no evidence of abduction.
The accounts of the mccanns and some associates were not consistent.
Tghey did what any other police force would have done, INVESTIGATE THE PARENTS.
Your biased opinion.
The PJ could find no evidence of abduction.
The accounts of the mccanns and some associates were not consistent.
Tghey did what any other police force would have done, INVESTIGATE THE PARENTS.
He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom with KATE as she [K] had told him that one or both twins had cried making much noise. (GM)
What a strange statement. Why didn't he say Madeleine slept with us both? Didn't Gerry hear the very loud crying or wasn't he in the apartment at the time the crying happened but only Kate &%+((£
INVESTIGATING THE PARENTS should not exclude the closure of other investigative avenues, which is precisely what happened in Madeleine McCann's case.
That there was no evidence against the parents illustrates that huge mistakes were made which allowed the real perpetrators to go off laughing up their sleeves at the helpful ineptitude.
That the strangers witnessed were not traced before concentrating on Madeleine's parents is an illustration of extreme negligence.
Noitdidn't.
There was and is no evidence of abduction.
You can post til the cows come home, but it won't change that.
But the cows do always come home in the end. So could you please stick to the Topic.
No they don't and certainly not in this case.
But you can always stick to The Topic.
Or are you pissed off because The McCanns have never been arrested, never been found guilty of a criminal offence, and are never likely to be?
Meanwhile, The PJ on The Algarve and even elsewhere, are the subject of many witness statements and decidedly suspect, even if not actually convicted yet.
You may rest assured that I won't deleted your reply or my question. Although I can't answer for Anna or Angelo.
That's the name of the game.
No Eleanor, I'm not pissed off.When do you intend to give up then?
You would know if i was.
I don't expect the mccanns to be charged at any time in the future. It's too late for that, and too many people would be left with egg on their faces if they were
However, as I don't ever see the crime being solved at any point, now or ever, bar of course a confession, again very unlikely. The mccanns will have this case hanging around their necks for years to come.
Don't worry, I won't be commenting on them for ever and a day. I do have far more important things to do with my time, as I'm sure you do as well.
No Eleanor, I'm not pissed off.
You would know if i was.
I don't expect the mccanns to be charged at any time in the future. It's too late for that, and too many people would be left with egg on their faces if they were
However, as I don't ever see the crime being solved at any point, now or ever, bar of course a confession, again very unlikely. The mccanns will have this case hanging around their necks for years to come.
Don't worry, I won't be commenting on them for ever and a day. I do have far more important things to do with my time, as I'm sure you do as well.
So someone else willing to let his mug be seen stalking the joint?? whats the difference?
Lace? you havent responded
"Usually they entered the apartment, in which one of the lounge lights was lit, going to the children's bedroom door that was partially open [ajar] and limited themselves to peep inside, trying to hear if the children were crying." (GM 10 May)
Now what they later said in their reconstruction. First visual check of the week and the last time Madeleine was seen. The door was open wider so I went to close it to ajar NOT check on the children first in case one was missing. Why did you go to the apartment? To check on your children wasn't it not move doors.
"The children were fast asleep and being checked every thirty minutes. Even if there had been a baby-listening service it would not have given our kids as much attention as our own visits did. We were going into the apartments and looking as well as listening." (Madeleine)
He hasn't been seen since has he?
Although not actually a statement, this is strange because the note can't be found in the PJ files;
From “Madeleine” by Kate McCann:
It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.
Although not actually a statement, this is strange because the note can't be found in the PJ files;
From “Madeleine” by Kate McCann:
It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.
Maybe the reason it wasn't in the PJ files, because it only appeared in the book and nowhere else.
you don't know...so you are making accusations of lies with no basis
No dave, I am making a valid point.if it only exists in the book then kate is lying is what you are saying
If it only exists in the book..................................
Then the files on the net are not complete
if it only exists in the book then kate is lying is what you are saying
Is that a fact or a leap of faith?
I would have thought that this is the sort of important evidence that would have been reproduced as a photostat in her book to prove what she was saying.
Are there any verifiable references in the book or is it just a narrative according to Kate?
well you thought wrong...contrary to what some on here think...Kate does not have to prove anything
Perhaps you need to undertake some exercises in logic.
Merely because someone writes something in a book, does not make it true.
well you thought wrong...contrary to what some on here think...Kate does not have to prove anything
we know that kate has the official files...we don't know that the ones on the net are complete...in fact posters have already highlighted missing statements
Kate McCann, I would assume, has the same files as everyone else. Some statements taken by Leicester police are not in the files. Some people were spoken to but didn't make official statements. Some information was withheld for reasons of privacy. The files are numbered by page. Some pages are missing and there is a very good analysis of what they would contain here;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
you assume wrong...kate has the files from the pj which she has had translated herself....
The translation may differ, but the files are numbered. The missing pages are documented. What, therefore can she have that no-one else has?
so either kate's lying or the net published files are not complete..I believe kate...the fact that you and others don't is of no importance whatsoever
You are entitled to believe anything you wish. Speaking for myself, I haven't accused anyone of lying. I merely pointed out that something stated in Kate McCann's book as being in the PJ Files cannot be verified by reference to those files.
are you making posts simply to fill your empty time or does this post have a purpose...it has purpose and the purpose is to try and discredit Kate
The translation may differ, but the files are numbered. The missing pages are documented. What, therefore can she have that no-one else has?
When you write a book that is not a work of fiction, it is not unusual to quote sources and references to support the work.
When you write a book that is not a work of fiction, it is not unusual to quote sources and references to support the work.
That could equally apply to Amaral's book, couldn't it?
Wasn't the reception-book illustrated in the German version of the Crimewatch appeal? I'd have to check back, but I do seem to recall that.
Kate was aware of the sexual assaults, but it's not clear to me whether "in the files" meant what was released to them by PT or whether "the files" meant in general - including the info eventually released to them by LP.
Most, if not all, of the pages in the accessible files are numbered by hand, i.e., not automatic database entries. Missing pages have been noted, inter alia, where references have been made to other statements that don't appear on the DVD released to the media.
However, manually sorting and numbering documents to be filed according to the file volume leaves room for human error, I would have thought.
When was this manual page numbering and classification actually done? Was it established from Day 1, or was it a small team trying to wade through and put some kind of order into a massive mess of documents that had accumulated?
... but he was quoting from police files and states it was a theory.
an unofficial autobiography is NOT an autobiography now is it?
That could equally apply to Amaral's book, couldn't it?
What sexual assaults? She refers to 'the files released by the Portuguese police' no mention of Leicester police. How they were numbered and collated has no relevance because what is there is there and what is not there is not there.
amaral has not stated his was a theory...he has stated his theory is fact
I'm confused. What is "what"? And where is "there"?
Sorry, Carana. What I meant was that the PJ Files were issued to various people, including the McCanns. I can't see why their version would be different. Therefore if something is in their PJ Files it should also be in the ones on the internet.
Why would the barman in the Millenium Restaurant be talking about Tapas Restaurant bookings I wonder?
When asked he says that on a date he cannot remember, the group, just the adults because the children were dining with the nannies, had been too late in making their dinner reservation at the Tapas, and an exception was made, authorised by his boss Steve, as the Tapas only provides for 20 dinners for half board clients as was the case.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUIS_BARROS.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUIS_BARROS.htm)
But his boss Steve says;
He says that on the day of the girl's disappearance he worked at the resort until 20.00. He said that he was absent from Portugal between Sunday 29th April and the 2nd May 2007.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEVEN_COVA.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEVEN_COVA.htm)
Maybe the barman was mistaken, unless someone phoned his boss in another country. If he had intervened in the bookings on 3rd May they both should have remembered it.
Because he was the catering manager!
The Tapas bar did not serve dinner, on Saturdays.
1578 'Okay and then in the evenings''
Reply 'And then the evening yes, so on that, cos the Sunday night had worked well with us sort of eating dinner as adults and you know just going back to check on the children, erm that, but at the Tapas, they said they, you could only book in the morning, you couldn't kind of block book or anything like that, you had to kind of call them at you know, eight or nine o'clock and say that you wanted a table for that night, erm and because we were a big group of nine, erm I begged and pleaded with them to let us book for the whole week, a table at eight thirty every night, erm'.
00.36.51 1578 'When did you do that''
Reply 'Because otherwise'.
1578 'No sorry, when''
Reply 'Oh when, that was on the Monday morning, erm because you know otherwise we, it would have just been really difficult to, well have a, have dinner in peace and erm, er you know we couldn't really have gone anywhere else cos oh yeah, we'd have had, I'd have to take the children or put them, there was a like a creche you could put them in, in the evening when you went to dinner but you know we were all kind of, you know the kids generally go to bed at seven thirty and they're tired out, they need to sleep but if they went somewhere else, they wouldn't have slept and erm, and you would have been up late, so we didn't want to do that and you know the Tapas was there and you know the apartment, you know we could see the apartments just there, you know it was only sort of you know, birds eye view was only sort of you know, thirty metres or something like that, so erm and you know, and we kept going and checking, so that seemed like kind of a good option'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Barros gave his occupation as 'barman' to the PJ when he made his statement. Nelson says he was the 'head waiter'. either way his boss 'Steve' didn't authorise the group to book late into the Tapas restaurant because he wasn't in Portugal between 30th April and 2nd May.
Why would the barman in the Millenium Restaurant be talking about Tapas Restaurant bookings I wonder?
When asked he says that on a date he cannot remember, the group, just the adults because the children were dining with the nannies, had been too late in making their dinner reservation at the Tapas, and an exception was made, authorised by his boss Steve, as the Tapas only provides for 20 dinners for half board clients as was the case.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUIS_BARROS.htm
But his boss Steve says;
He says that on the day of the girl's disappearance he worked at the resort until 20.00. He said that he was absent from Portugal between Sunday 29th April and the 2nd May 2007.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEVEN_COVA.htm
Maybe the barman was mistaken, unless someone phoned his boss in another country. If he had intervened in the bookings on 3rd May they both should have remembered it.
Sorry, Carana. What I meant was that the PJ Files were issued to various people, including the McCanns. I can't see why their version would be different. Therefore if something is in their PJ Files it should also be in the ones on the internet.
Kate and Gerry had the files before the Media.
Herculean proportions facing me: combing through the 5,000 or so pages of documentation contained in the case files that had been presented to the prosecutor and received by our lawyers on 31 July.
Released to the Media, 4th August.
I'm sure if what Kate said, was not in the files, someone would have been screaming from the roof tops.
I can assure you not all files on the net, match the DVD's contents.
How do you know? Have you got the boxed set?
Steve was back on 3 May. His authorisation is mentioned in several places on the booking sheet for that evening.
Kate and Gerry had the files before the Media.
Herculean proportions facing me: combing through the 5,000 or so pages of documentation contained in the case files that had been presented to the prosecutor and received by our lawyers on 31 July.
Released to the Media, 4th August.
I'm sure if what Kate said, was not in the files, someone would have been screaming from the roof tops.
I can assure you not all files on the net, match the DVD's contents.
Cos I have them. No, there's only two. %#&%%5
If you have the original complete files I would be interested to know how many pages they have?
Kate and Gerry had the files before the Media.
Herculean proportions facing me: combing through the 5,000 or so pages of documentation contained in the case files that had been presented to the prosecutor and received by our lawyers on 31 July.
Released to the Media, 4th August.
I'm sure if what Kate said, was not in the files, someone would have been screaming from the roof tops.
I can assure you not all files on the net, match the DVD's contents.
oooh, me too
*&*%£
More importantly DCI will be able to given a page number where information on the missing note can be found.
Perhaps you need to undertake some exercises in logic.
Merely because someone writes something in a book, does not make it true.
Absolutely, its not every day that we can see the original source material - assuming he's willing, of course and not just a tease. 8(>((
And nobody saw him there? During the night when they were already looking for the girl.
Yes, but they were looking for a girl alive, not a girl dead. In addition, I am not saying that the body remained on the beach all the time. Clearly, the first thing was to remove it from the apartment. Later they could find other solutions to hide it. Witnesses of the National Republican Guard said they had seen the McCanns directed onto the beach twice in the course of that morning. Surely they quickly found a better place. (Goncalo Amaral)
"The McCanns hid the body on the beach" DiarioMetro
Ruth Suárez
Published: 08:29 h. 11-09-2008
More Libel, eh!
.... and you are repeating it !!!!
That's from an interview but It makes perfect sense for the yard to do a proper search there when the prime suspect Smithman was heading towards it in the DARK! Don't you want Smithman to be identified Sadie? He could have been the one that took Maddy.
If you believe all Faiths sordid make believe, you are more naive than I thought you were.
He makes it up as he goes along PFinder.
Report AimThat is NOT libel, PFinder, but rather unpleasant speculation.
'This report solely considers the scenario that Madeline McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed on the beach at PD Luz'
It is possible a small child could be secreted amongst the rocks in natural voids.
Low tide on the night of the 3* May 2007 was at 2200hrs at 2m. The maximum amount of beach would be accessible including the rocky outcrop.
Of those limited cases that were found to be a beach disposal the overwhelming majority were surface depositions with only one recorded concealment using rocks on top of a 2 year old child (CATCHEM Database)
Where a homicide occurs and the sea is accessible and nearby then it would become a natural disposal choice for an offender using the "least effort" principle. The beach itself would appear to merely be the platform to facilitate
this.
I would suggest a limited inspection around the rock falls at the base of the cliffs' on the beach and the waters around the rocky outcrop to the east of the beach.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
That is NOT libel, PFinder, but rather unpleasant speculation.
What you repeated earlier was libel, I think you will find.
Anyway Nigh night, Pfinder.
At G-unit:
Your quotes are partial and distort what was actually written:
The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area
being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible
evidence to be located only the remaining scent.
The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident. The CSI dog
was therefore deployed who gave specific alert indications to specific areas
on the tiled floor area behind the sofa and on the curtain in the area that was
in contact with the floor behind the sofa. This would indicate to the likely
presence of human blood.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.
odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time. Cadaver scent
cannot readily be removed by cleaning as the compounds adhere to surfaces.
The scent can be 'masked' by bleach and other strong smelling odours but
the dog's olfactory system is able to isolate the odours and identify specific
compounds' and mixes. Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in
numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any
other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication.
Each of your abbreviated quotes materially change the meaning of the quote when seen in context.
I hope this was entirely accidental!
I'm concentrating on one alert only, in the main bedroom. As I understand it Eddie gave a positive alert with his head in the air. This means he was alerting to the scent he was trained to find, but couldn't give the source of it. It wasn't blood so what was it? If it was cadaver scent where did it come from? Grime mentions a number of possible scenarios but doesn't elaborate as to what they might be. There may be no evidence to explain his alert, but the alert occurred.
I agree with you that people may not have correct recall and that the important thing is that they were there. In that case why didn't Gerald McCann accept that he could have been wrong? Surely the exact place where they spoke wasn't important? His insistence suggests that he attaches some importance to where they stood.Probably irrelevant but wouldn't voices just outside a lounge window be louder (inside) than voices across the street?
The PJ responded to Gerald McCann's 4th May statement in which he mentioned speaking to Jeremy Wilkins very quickly. They faxed Leicester police on 7th May asking for Jeremy Wilkins to be interviewed. In response, Wembley police were phoned by Leicester police and they faxed Jeremy Wilkin's statement to Leicester police on 7th May at 21.16; it was passed back to the PJ the same day.
Did Gerald McCann know what Jeremy Wilkins said in his statement? This is a possibility IMO as Leicester police seem to have been happy to share information with them. If he did have knowledge of it, then he had a problem.
Jeremy said he didn't see Jane Tanner pass by. Jeremy's statement was important to Gerald because it confirmed the checking of the children. Jane's sighting was important as it upheld the abduction thesis. If Gerald said he didn't see Jane either he would have diminished her sighting. If he said he did see her he diminished Jeremy's evidence.
Perhaps his solution was to move the meeting across the road, so that he could agree with Jeremy and it was then more believable that they didn't see Jane. This suggests to me that Jane didn't pass the two men when they were talking next to the passageway. I believe Jeremy Wilkins. He spoke to Gerald McCann next to the entrance to the passageway and Jane Tanner didn't pass them in my opinion.
Probably irrelevant but wouldn't voices just outside a lounge window be louder (inside) than voices across the street?
Probably they would. He certainly seemed determined to distance himself from either the apartment or the path.If we are in the living room of an apartment and there is a conversation on the other side of the road and some distance further south, it's debatable whether we inside would even hear it. But now move the conversation to just outside the window, and it is likely we will hear it. A second difference would be the angle of view.
If we are in the living room of an apartment and there is a conversation on the other side of the road and some distance further south, it's debatable whether we inside would even hear it. But now move the conversation to just outside the window, and it is likely we will hear it. A second difference would be the angle of view.
If we are in the living room of an apartment and there is a conversation on the other side of the road and some distance further south, it's debatable whether we inside would even hear it. But now move the conversation to just outside the window, and it is likely we will hear it. A second difference would be the angle of view.The sound would be clearer from the western corner of the alleyway, but it would be completely out of sight from the lounge. Bushes in the way and the angle too acute
Are we burglars, abductors or children?Placing you and me inside the apartment is my way of forcing us to examine the conversation strictly from inside the apartment, in other words from the perspective (initially ears) of a child.
The Tapas 9 booking note is mentioned in the PJ files.
Louisa ... Coutinho was receptionist at the Tapas area and gave her statement on 8 May 2007. She says she made the bookings and her statement says that during the interview she provided a book with the reservations for the Tapas restaurant.
She states that she made the block booking because it had been explained to her that the group had children nearby and wanted to check on them regularly.
Then we get into speculation zone. I can see nothing in the file that is a note with the bookings explaining that these are authorised on the basis that children are nearby. Whether that piece of information is accurate is up in the air. However, it is referred to in Amaral's book as well as Kate's, and it happens to make sense. But you decide.
The odd part is that Louisa C says a thin man with a child, who was in the T9 but was not Gerry, made the booking, and it was on Sunday (29th). In Rachael's rogatory statement (made much later of course), she says she made the block booking, on Monday (30th). Take your pick.
The sound would be clearer from the western corner of the alleyway, but it would be completely out of sight from the lounge. Bushes in the way and the angle too acuteYes, the view is at an acute angle, and the bushes may block it, at least partly, IMO..
I am not even going to consider the other side of the road. From several statements it is clear that Gerry got it wrong
Yes, the view is at an acute angle, and the bushes may block it, at least partly, IMO..
You are moving towards speculating about the distance of the sofa from the window sill which would have allowed a child to overbalance, fall down behind & remain out of sight at the 9.30 check.
You are moving towards speculating about the distance of the sofa from the window sill which would have allowed a child to overbalance, fall down behind & remain out of sight at the 9.30 check.Mainly I was commenting on G-unit's post about the conversation location. One location is presumably louder inside, but has a very acute angle of sight. The other location would be presumably be quieter inside, but has a better, less acute angle of sight. The location of the conversation determines its audibility and visibility inside the lounge, also the reverse, the visibility of the window from the conversation. This might be relevant in various theories, including Mr Amaral's sofa climb variant or the opposite "abduction while chat happened outside" theory.
In the 'Madeleine was here' video Jane Tanner was clearly saying that Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins were between the path entrance and the apartment garden gate. Jeremy Wilkins says on the corner where the path meets the road. Gerald McCann over-ruled both and moved the conversation across the road.And Jane Tanner VERY CLEARLY showed where it happened on the Mccann video. Right in front of the corner of the alleyway, but partially on the pavement and partially in the road.
And Jane Tanner VERY CLEARLY showed where it happened on the Mccann video. Right in front of the corner of the alleyway, but partially on the pavement and partially in the road.Yes that seems accurate and using that location - the talking outside is likely to have been audible inside the lounge (if lounge window was single glazed??), but a person looking out the closed window would have difficulty seeing the chat, because of the acute angle, and for the same reason would not be seen by the people chatting, IMO.
And Jez VERY CLEARLY showed where it happened on his map. On the alleyway corner.
And, Jezes description also equated to them meeting somewhere in that area by the alleyway corner and NOT at the gate.
Three positions that agree. They chatted on the alleyway corner but seemingly on the kerb and in the roadway.
Why all the obfuscation?
And Jane Tanner VERY CLEARLY showed where it happened on the Mccann video. Right in front of the corner of the alleyway, but partially on the pavement and partially in the road.
And Jez VERY CLEARLY showed where it happened on his map. On the alleyway corner.
And, Jezes description also equated to them meeting somewhere in that area by the alleyway corner and NOT at the gate.
Three positions that agree. They chatted on the alleyway corner but seemingly on the kerb and in the roadway.
Why all the obfuscation?
I notice on that first video Pfinder that Kate says Madeleine said 'why didn't you come when Sean and me were crying' notice there is no 'last night' I am sure that is what Kate said and the 'last night' bit was added in. Which makes me more or less sure that Madeleine meant the Tuesday night when Amelie woke her and Sean up.
I notice on that first video Pfinder that Kate says Madeleine said 'why didn't you come when Sean and me were crying' notice there is no 'last night' I am sure that is what Kate said and the 'last night' bit was added in. Which makes me more or less sure that Madeleine meant the Tuesday night when Amelie woke her and Sean up.A way for police to check which night the child was describing (given that the lady witness upstairs has sadly passed away) is to simply request the landline records from Portugal Telecom for 5g for the late evenings of May 1st and May 2nd, to see which night the phonecall to friend EG was.
A way for police to check which night the child was describing (given that the lady witness upstairs has sadly passed away) is to simply request the landline records from Portugal Telecom for 5g for the late evenings of May 1st and May 2nd, to see which night the phonecall to friend EG was.
A better way to check, Pegasus, is ask Edna Glyn to aquire her phone records. Or even Murat, if she did phone him.
Mrs F's phone number is on her statement. RMs phone records are in the files. Over to you, Pegasus....Good idea but is there any indication that PF phoned RM on the night she heard it? IMO probably she told him on a later date. So that wouldn't identify the actual night she heard it. But if Portugal Telecom still have database of landline calls 2007, then the call at about 2300 from PF to EG should be in that database, listed for both numbers exactly the date, 1st or 2nd.
Good idea but is there any indication that PF phoned RM on the night she heard it? IMO probably she told him on a later date. So that wouldn't identify the actual night she heard it. But if Portugal Telecom still have database of landline calls 2007, then the call at about 2300 from PF to EG should be in that database, listed for both numbers exactly the date, 1st or 2nd.
Jez said in his statement "by the gate" which is not the same as "by the alley". Im not sure why you are insisting about a matter of a metre or two here?
Surely this something that the police would have checked out.
SY will have checked it out, for sure, just as they will have double-checked exactly what time Sam. M in Exeter called her mother on the morning of the 4th to tell her about the missing little girl.Maybe SY/PJ have checked the 11pm call in PT landline records, or maybe not, I don't know. Even if they are focussing completely on abduction and burglary theories, it would be important to identify exactly which night the crying was IMO, just in case it is relevant.
Good idea but is there any indication that PF phoned RM on the night she heard it? IMO probably she told him on a later date. So that wouldn't identify the actual night she heard it. But if Portugal Telecom still have database of landline calls 2007, then the call at about 2300 from PF to EG should be in that database, listed for both numbers exactly the date, 1st or 2nd.
On 1st May, Kate had 4 telephone activations between 8.31pm and 8.37pm.
Then a gap, which I assume is dinner.
Then 6 more activations between 10.16pm and 10.27pm.
This does not fit the 'parents out late and Maddie crying' pattern.
Try 2nd May, when the parents WERE out late (book/statements).
On 1st May, Kate had 4 telephone activations between 8.31pm and 8.37pm.Agreed. The 1st is impossible IMO. However the 2nd fits extremely well.
Then a gap, which I assume is dinner.
Then 6 more activations between 10.16pm and 10.27pm.
This does not fit the 'parents out late and Maddie crying' pattern.
Try 2nd May, when the parents WERE out late (book/statements).
And Jane Tanner VERY CLEARLY showed where it happened on the Mccann video. Right in front of the corner of the alleyway, but partially on the pavement and partially in the road.
And Jez VERY CLEARLY showed where it happened on his map. On the alleyway corner.
And, Jezes description also equated to them meeting somewhere in that area by the alleyway corner and NOT at the gate.
Three positions that agree. They chatted on the alleyway corner but seemingly on the kerb and in the roadway.
Why all the obfuscation?
Agreed. The 1st is impossible IMO. However the 2nd fits extremely well.
The 2nd doesn't fit because Rachael would hear any crying next door if it had happened on the Wednesday screaming Daddy for 75 minutes. If Fenn could hear the continued loud crying then Rachael would also. The 1st does fit but the crying has changed from Madeleine to her younger sister Amelie. Madeleine heard her crying but not Gerry or Kate &%+((£
1 May 2007
"Only two minor aspects of that evening stand out as differing from the norm. The first was that Russell didn’t join us for dinner. Evie wasn’t well so he stayed with their girls in the apartment and Jane took his meal to him there. The second was that some time in the early hours Madeleine came through to our bedroom, complaining that Amelie was crying and had woken her up. Gerry checked on Amelie, who settled quickly, and we let Madeleine jump into bed with us." (Madeleine)
OK, so we have a problem here. Mrs Fenn makes it 1st May, for an extended time. Kate's phone records suggest she was busy on her phone just before the crying incident. Was she nearby and ignored the crying? Are we in scandal at Chaplin's territory? Was there no crying that night?
The T9 stopped out late on 2nd. Except for Rachael, if she got her rog right. She was stuck in 5B and heard no crying.
The key parties admit being late out on 2nd.
Book says Maddie raised the crying incident on the morning of the 3rd.
Is Mrs Fenn right? Did crying occur on 1st after Kate was busy on her phone? Did the T9 then stop out on 2nd, regardless? Did Maddie raise the crying on 3rd if it happened on 1st? Has Rachael got her rog right?
Kate went back to the tapas bar to join the others after her phone calls just before 10:30. The phone calls have woken Madeleine and the crying starts for 75 minutes until they return at 11.45. (TUE 1 MAY 2007)
OK, so we have a problem here. Mrs Fenn makes it 1st May, for an extended time. Kate's phone records suggest she was busy on her phone just before the crying incident. Was she nearby and ignored the crying? Are we in scandal at Chaplin's territory? Was there no crying that night?
The T9 stopped out late on 2nd. Except for Rachael, if she got her rog right. She was stuck in 5B and heard no crying.
The key parties admit being late out on 2nd.
Book says Maddie raised the crying incident on the morning of the 3rd.
Is Mrs Fenn right? Did crying occur on 1st after Kate was busy on her phone? Did the T9 then stop out on 2nd, regardless? Did Maddie raise the crying on 3rd if it happened on 1st? Has Rachael got her rog right?
A different possibility is that it wasn't Madeleine that she heard, nor even a single child throughout the duration. I find it quite feasible that she heard children in different apartments, possibly with the last one being Amelie (who did cry that night, but later than Mrs Fenn's recollection).Put it this way, what time did they get home on the 1st?
It's often hard to locate exactly where noise is coming from in an apartment building and there could be the old sensibility factor at play here as well: child heard crying, child disappeared... same child? She heard patio doors sliding from the floor below and the crying then stopped - it would be easy to presume that the crying came from 5A. However, if it was 5A, how come she didn't also hear either of the gates or anyone climbing the steps?
It's unfortunate that the PJ didn't think to:
- interview her for three months,
- check the date and time with her friend Edna,
- check if other occupants had children crying that evening, and
- do a sound reconstruction...
Some boats have jetski storage
Search web images for: yacht with jet ski storage
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11229384_10206499690233345_8392766019961377639_n.jpg?oh=e4da96494c1fa37cec9c8749c8ecea1b&oe=5608DFE0)
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11113226_10206499690473351_3779363560347581543_n.jpg?oh=8d99aa37f4433a9f93f7267929d9e65d&oe=55F5373D)
So, from the horses's mouth, the Portuguese police can manufacture proof to get a reaction?
Dear oh dear. Woof.
So, from the horses's mouth, the Portuguese police can manufacture proof to get a reaction?
Dear oh dear. Woof.
So, from the horses's mouth, the Portuguese police can manufacture proof to get a reaction?
Dear oh dear. Woof.
I was going to say... what a strange idea to be promoting in Team Amaral's defence.
Who needs enemies with friends like that? &%+((£
Police forces everywhere use the same tactics. You better start viewing some crime programmes because it happens in tricky cases. US Police were releasing other prime suspects to the public when the real tricky one who did it was hidden and behind the scenes they were gathering enough evidence to convict. And the one who did it was not a suspect the police said to the public. That was a LIE!
In that case, all of Amaral's spoutings over the years insisting that the McCanns knew that their daughter was dead, had simulated an abduction and disposed of her body was to flush out and catch the real culprit? Whodathunkit?
That is in the released PJ files. Those were the conclusions of the case when he left the investigation before he could investigate Smithman. SY are doing that many years later. Amaral was at that stage in 2007.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
From everything that was exposed from the AUTOS, we conclude that:
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007;
B) It was performed a simulation of kidnapping;
C) In order to avoid the death [alarm] of the minor before 22H00, it was created a situation of the children's surveillance by the McCann while the children slept;
D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann;
E) At this moment, there seems that there aren't strong indicia that the death of the minor didn't happen due to a tragic accident;
F) From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred.
So we suggest that the 'Autos' be sent to the EX.mo Sr. Procurador Geral da R'ublica [General Attorney], in order to:
G) New interrogation of the Arguidos Kate and Gerry McCann;
H) Evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case;
On the tenth of September, two thousand and seven
Chief Inspector
Tavares de Almeida
That is in the released PJ files. Those were the conclusions of the case when he left the investigation before he could investigate Smithman. SY are doing that many years later. Great Inspector Amaral @)(++(* was at that stage in 2007.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
From everything that was exposed from the AUTOS, we conclude that:
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007;
B) It was performed a simulation of kidnapping;
C) In order to avoid the death [alarm] of the minor before 22H00, it was created a situation of the children's surveillance by the McCann while the children slept;
D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann;
E) At this moment, there seems that there aren't strong indicia that the death of the minor didn't happen due to a tragic accident;
F) From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred.
So we suggest that the 'Autos' be sent to the EX.mo Sr. Procurador Geral da R'ublica [General Attorney], in order to:
G) New interrogation of the Arguidos Kate and Gerry McCann;
H) Evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case;
On the tenth of September, two thousand and seven
Chief Inspector
Tavares de Almeida
Do you really expect us to take too much notice of what a criminal says?
At that a friend of Amarals.
RE: Chief Inspector Vitor Tavares de Almeida ...A Torturer and criminal
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/pena-suspensa-para-dupla-da-pj-condenada-por-tortura
Two and a half years in prison
Suspended sentence for double PJ convicted of torture
Two chief inspectors of the PJ were sentenced on Friday to two years and six months imprisonment with suspended sentence for torture against Virgolino Borges, told to Lusa the victim's lawyer.
the news of the sentencing of two inspectors of the Judicial Police was advanced by SIC Notícias.
The collective of judges of the 3rd stick criminal Lisbon condemned the torture inspectors Chief Joseph Diamantino Santos and Vitor Tavares de Almeida and the payment of a fine of 80 euros / month for the same period, told to the Lusa the attorney Jerónimo Martins.
By his criminal activity torturing Virgolinho Borges in order to get the "trooff" , Tavares de Almeida has demonstarted how he goes about getting his type of " Justice ".
Soz Pfinder but you are on a loser quoting him.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htmI see no discrepancy in that text. Also remember that we have a strong and clear witness statement that the child was present and well at about 9.05pm. The investigation starts at the moment a person is last seen.
Date: 2007/07/11; Time: 10:00; Location: DIC Portimão
Officer: Paulo F., Inspector.
*snip*
Questioned the defendant reaffirms that in truth on the afternoon of 03 May he arrived at Casa Liliana around 19:00/19:30 having left the VW stopped in front of the house, that is outside the property, immediately entering into the property. Questioned he does not remember the clothes he was wearing at the time. Nor does he remember if his mother was at home or not. Nor does he recall in detail what he did. He remembers that at one time he spoke with his mother, however he cannot recall whether she arrived meanwhile or she was already there. He remembers that they were sitting in the kitchen and the defendant remembering that he ate, how long with his mother he does not remember. Confronted with the testimony of his mother who told that she arrived at the house around 20.30 and that Robert had also arrived at that moment, he says that he cannot account
for having arrived at the same time as his mother.
___________________________________________________________________
I ask again - which car did JM use to go to the Baptista? How did she not know her son was home if his car was parked outside?
"...the fund had silenced his investigators for years..."It's amazing how much information can fit into 8 words.
It's amazing how much information can fit into 8 words.
"Information"? Has it been revealed what the £55k payout actually concerned?I don't know about 55k.
It's amazing how much information can fit into 8 words.
It took the newspapers slightly more than eight words to inform the public of the way in which the head of this firm squandered the money intended to look for a missing child ... while ignoring calls being made by the public as a result of the information appeals made by her parents.
Why are crooks always right and Madeleine McCann's family always wrong and anything said by the former truthful and the latter lies.
Give me one good reason why the Fund should not have sacked Oakley International and give me one good reason why they should have trusted any of the work allegedly carried out by them.
Why do you suppose no-one leaked any information from the report to the media before SY got involved?
Why do you suppose no-one leaked any information from the report to the media before SY got involved?When SY started their investigation I guess they approached all known PI companies who had worked on the case and asked for all relevant information.
It took the newspapers slightly more than eight words to inform the public of the way in which the head of this firm squandered the money intended to look for a missing child ... while ignoring calls being made by the public as a result of the information appeals made by her parents.One very good reason: Because the fund had checked them out before hiring them.
Why are crooks always right and Madeleine McCann's family always wrong and anything said by the former truthful and the latter lies.
Give me one good reason why the Fund should not have sacked Oakley International and give me one good reason why they should have trusted any of the work allegedly carried out by them.
When SY started their investigation I guess they approached all known PI companies who had worked on the case and asked for all relevant information.
None; always provided there was a contract between "The Fund Ltd" and Oakley International Ltd. Was there do we know?
If there wasn't a contract, wouldn't the accountants / auditors have wondered where such a substantial amount of money had disappeared to?
One very good reason: Because the fund had checked them out before hiring them.
And another: Because they managed to get 2 efits connected with the Smith sighting.
Of course, however there seems to be some confusion whether "The Fund" or Brian Kennedy funded it.
It is not immediately apparent from the accounts filed at CH whether "The Fund Ltd" contracted with Oakley or not. There is nothing to suggest it in the 2007/8 accounts which are broken down to a degree. The 2009 accounts are not broken down and show a lump sum of approaching £1MM as "Merchandising and Campaign Costs" so conceivably it is in there. I don't really care, all I was doing was pointing out who can do what with which and to whom in a contractual sense; ie if Kennedy placed the order and funded it "The Fund Limited" have no contractual relationship and consequently no powers.
Madeleine was very close to Gerry; she was always at his side. Gerry is a typical male and is very organised, but I feel it is Kate who dominates. Gerry adores Kate. When Madeleine was small she would cry a lot. She was a very active baby who did not sleep well. She liked to be carried. She liked people to move around with her and to sing to her. Kate and Gerry found that she craved a lot of attention and were grateful for the help from other members of the family. Because Madeleine did occasionally have bad nights, Kate arranged a bonus system. She would get up in the middle of the night, would go to her parent's room to ensure they were there and would return to her own bed. This situation had gotten better before they went to Portugal. I had a conversation with Kate regarding care of the children in particular, leaving the children to cry until exhaustion and Kate and I both agreed that this was not correct and that the attention should be placed on calking them down. As parents, Kate and Gerry did not let their children cry. On the day before the Portugal trip, I went to their house to keep the children occupied whilst Kate and Gerry packed their bags. We went to the garden and Madeleine recited the book 'We're going on a bear hunt'. She recited this fantastically and without any evidence of unhappiness. Relative to the allegation that Madeleine made regarding Sean's crying, I do not have any idea what possessed Madeleine to make such an affirmation and also would state that Madeleine had a very fertile imagination. Madeleine dealt well with the arrival of the twins although she was only 22 months old at the time. There was occasionally a pinch or a poke but nothing more than pure jealously. As they began to grow up, they loved their older sister, and spent a lot of time with her. Madeleine taught them many things. I remember one occasion when I was taking care of them and Madeleine took out her doctor play toys and used the thermometer to hit Sean on the head. I spoke with her about taking care of her siblings and not hurting them, at which time she hit Sean once again -- Madeleine was like this, very energetic.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANNET-KENNEDY.htm
That, between Monday and Wednesday, not knowing the precise date, when they were leaving the residence through the main door, to place the children in the respective crèches, MADELEINE left running to the left, to the extreme opposite of the residential blocks where they were lodged, playing with the twins. That they walked down next to the most remote end of one of those blocks, not knowing exactly which one, and the three children got into one of the gardens at the back. Then they walked down the inside alley at the back, next to the hedges, up to the street that led to the secondary reception.
.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta2
Posted this only to answer a question by ShiningInLuz on another thread.
BTW this post is not abouit the GNR dog route, it is about child route on a previous day
Block5 groundfloor goes A to F, then block4 groundfloor goes A to F.
Everyone else will say this route of children was to go between the two blocks.
But IMO it was all the way along north side of both blocks, then around end of block4 by going through the end garden (going in someone's private front gate and out their back gate), then all the way along the alleyway along the south side of both blocks. Does this sound possible?
It would more than double their journey, so why would they do it? There is a clear pathway around Block 5. I think the route you have suggested would entail climbing over a wall between the blocks.The aim of children having fun is not to get from a to b by the shortest route possible.
The aim of children having fun is not to get from a to b by the shortest route possible.
The route I described involves gates but no wall climbing IMO.
IMO there is a gap between the end of the block and Rua 1 Maio and it is part of a garden.
IMO there is a gap between the end of the block and Rua 1 Maio and it is part of a garden.
I'm with Brietta on this. Zooming in on Google Satellite, there doesn't appear to be any pathway at the rear of Block 4, or if there is, it is very very narrow. I don't think the parents would have let the children down that far if they were unfamiliar with the walkway, bearing in mind there is a road right behind the last apartment in Block 4.
The statement says "extreme end".
IMO you can get around the extreme end but only if you go through someone's garden.
What I thought was a boundary wall at the back of block four is a small pathway giving access to the gardens which adjoins the wider pathway behind block five ~ no wall between. Therefore you are correct it would be possible but I don't think they would have used that route as a matter of course.The statement says they went that way by themselves.
Is there any record of them cutting through the private garden on any occasion?
I can't get in close enough to determine whether there is a gap allowing access to the garden at the end of the block, I would be surprised if there wasn't ... but I wouldn't traipse my family through private property ... and I doubt if the McCanns would.
So that gives me another reason to doubt ... public pathway perhaps ... private garden, I would say definite no no.
Looking at it on Google Earth ... it is secluded enough to make a reasonable escape route for an abductor ... like block five there are overhanging bushes and a car park.
Possibly ... but I really do not think they would have done that.It's what the witness statement says, and it's possible, so I believe the witness.
Can you remember why we are having this conversation anyway? what are we on about?
.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta2
Posted this only to answer a question by ShiningInLuz on another thread.
BTW this post is not abouit the GNR dog route, it is about child route on a previous day
Block5 groundfloor goes A to F, then block4 groundfloor goes A to F.
Everyone else will say this route of children was to go between the two blocks.
But IMO it was all the way along north side of both blocks, then around end of block4 by going through the end garden (going in someone's private front gate and out their back gate), then all the way along the alleyway along the south side of both blocks. Does this sound possible?
The incident in the statement we are discussing happened on way to kidsclub so it is in a morning or just after a lunch. There was also a different incident, this one happening at a bedtime, if this news article is correct....
"locals now claim that Madeleine did not always settle well. One evening they allege she ran away into the paths between the apartments, hiding for half an hour when it was time for bed.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleine-and-the-missing-hour-how-often-did-the-mccanns-check-on-their-children-6605058.html
I would place as much reliance on that as I would on all the unattributed newspaper allegations of that time ... and that is none.
Block 5 floor is 5A to 5D with 5H the Payne's apartment above the O'Briens in 5D. Block 4 seems to be a clone of block 5, but I have not confirmed this as it does not appear to be relevant.8@??)(
I have visited, oddly enough to check on some of Textusa's assertions about what is and is not possible re pedestrian movement.
Block 5 car park connects to block 4 car park (for pedestrian access only) as both have access to the passage between the blocks. (Been there, done it.)
There is a narrow passage down the west side of block 4, from the car park to the rear, beside 1 de Maio. It is now gated off at the front. As to when that gate went up, I do not know. I suspect it is post-Madeleine, simply because the folks who check the utility meters at that end of the block have to go through it to read the meters i.e. it is in a 'stupid' place.
The side passage is not a child hazard re 1 de Maio. 1 de Maio is elevated re block 4 at this location and effectively forms a wall. As it so happens, there is also a wire-mesh fence all down this side of 1 de Maio, keeping people out of the Tapas area (or more likely from falling off the drop from 1 de Maio to Tapas area and breaking their necks.)
That passageway held the flat's sunbathing loungers etc at the time I visited, so the folks consider it to be non-public.
At the rear that side passage is definitely in the back garden of block 4. You need to use the garden gate to get to the passageway to the south of block 4 and block 5.
That side passage is NOT a short cut from the front of block 4 to the Tapas area. It would be a long route. Anyone interested in a short-cut from the front would walk to the passage between 4 and 5. So there is no real need to have the passage beside 1 de Maio as a general public access area.
The passage at the rear of block 4 is roughly half the width of the same passage behind block 5.
You folks are clearly not reading my blog. Perhaps a couple of months ago I demonstrated the passage behind block 4 (rather than block 5) was the ideal place to monitor the Tapas 9, while being shielded from their sight, then swoop, abduct, and scarper back this way to get to car park 4, into a car and off into the night. No, I do not have proof it happened this way, merely that it makes sense and it is very easy.
Textusa has a post somewhere to the effect that one cannot get from south of the tennis courts to the car park in front of (west of) Baptista. You can. The car park beside Baptista/LuzTur has shops on the north side, but on the rear of those shops is a string of private houses, presumably falling within OC use. There is a similar pedestrian passage at the west end of those houses/shops beside 1 de Maio. In this case it is a valid short cut and open to members of the general public.
I suspect the 'errant children' tale appeared some time after the 'dog path' tale, but I have never been interested enough to check. As the 'errant children's' tale is Gerry's and he spent 2 months in block 4, he should have recognised exactly where the children wandered. Technically it fits the category of strange 'statement', but it does not light my fire.
A first step in investigation.
If a person goes somewhere it will probably be to a place they know, not a place they have never been.
Now what do you mean by that?The group searched along the route between apartment and kidsclub because they thought the child might have wandered, and this was a route the child knew from experience.
The group searched along the route between apartment and kidsclub because they thought the child might have wandered, and this was a route the child knew from experience.
This is good investigative logic - it has solved cases.
The statement posted describes a different route the child went on. Following the same logic, this route known from experience might be taken if wandering.
You raise a good point about the areas searched but unfortunately we will never really know. The fact that in the early days the British police were asking for civilians who may have assisted in the searches for Madeleine on the night of her disappearance suggests no record of either participants or areas searched was collated.
I think this was inefficient use of resources and an under evaluation of the assistance given.
BRITISH HOLIDAY MAKERS ASKED BY POLICE TO HELP FURTHER WITH HUNT FOR MADELEINE MCCANN
Anne Harrison, Detective Chief Superintendent from the NPIA said
“We also want anyone who took part in the initial search for Madeleine that took place before the Portuguese police arrived at the scene of her abduction but who have not yet come forward to contact us on 0800 096 1233.”
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/press_release-ceop.pdf
Who was supposed to collate a list of searchers before the police arrived then? Mark Warner? The parents? Or was that the first job the police should have done, asked everyone on the streets for their names, contact details and areas searched?
It your assertion then that the policing authority has no locus in organising the civilian volunteers in the search for a missing child.
I think it is a ridiculous assertion which goes against all known protocols ... but if you are happy who am I to upset your apple cart.
They were asking for people who searched before the police arrived to come forward.
Quite. Protocol was being followed unfortunately neither when or where it should have been to ascertain the who and where of the searchers.
At the same time a public appeal was being made for holidaymakers' photographs to be sent in if there were shots which included strangers in the background, Detective Chief Superintendent Anne Harrison was anxious to speak to holidaymakers who may have participated in the searches for Madeleine.
An efficient investigation would have already carried out these diligences.
I think you are being unfair to the PJ. They had very little time before the holidaymakers left PdL. They spent most of it searching, interviewing those who came forward voluntarily and interviewing the group.
The initiative you are referring to couldn't have been done by the PJ as it involved asking people in the UK to come forward. Hence this lot getting involved;
The appeal was launched today by the UK law enforcement agencies assisting the
Portuguese authorities – Leicestershire Constabulary, Association of Chief Police
Officers (ACPO), the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre and
the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA).
8@??)(Balcony to rear of block 6 is good. Front of block 6 is not so good. We have the testimony of the lady visiting in 605. Unless it was her, we have to go up. Balu and Berry on the balcony of 606 that night, which cuts the options.
...
Like you, I did think of the eastern end of the alleyway behind block 4.
...
What I didn't like was that alleyway junction is quite a distance from the tapas bar ...
It is an option worth considering, but...
I prefer the balcony immediately across the road from 5A, because everyone had to walk by that .... and it is only a maxm of 12 metres [40 ft] from where everyone walked ... and moderately illuminated.
In addition anyone there could see in virtually every direction that peeps could come to catch them "at-it".
The Polícia Judiciária have a command structure ... if you consider it "unfair" to state that elementary protocols were not carried out that is your privilege.
Balcony to rear of block 6 is good. Front of block 6 is not so good. We have the testimony of the lady visiting in 605. Unless it was her, we have to go up. Balu and Berry on the balcony of 606 that night, which cuts the options.I think it was planned
So we are looking at the levels above ground floor, on the balcony at the rear. That means access to the balcony, and that means access to the relevant apartment. Now the timescale is getting very complex.
It could have happened that way, but I am having trouble with the trigger.
I think it was planned
Probably light (torch or lighter) signals might have been used to signal the all clear, etc.
If using the Block 6 balcony over looking the side of 5A. then it would idealy need a group of three, altho it could have been done by two.
1. Watcher/director/ driver
2. Lifter (someone with some medical knowledge and also preferably had to be someone known to Madeleine)
3. Main adductor (standing outside 5A) watchig for signals from no1 across the road and also passing things (drugs etc) thru the window and directing / encouraging the lifter.
He also had the key and opened and closed the front door using only the ley, so no fingerprints.
We used to call him Bundleman but we seem to call him Tannerman now.
The lifter passed Madeleine to him then scarpered, possibly back to the staff quarters.
He expected to be picked up with Madeleine in his arms from Block 5 car park entrance, but as the car was late and he he was impatient and frightened, he walked to meet the car at Jane Tanner corner.
In the meantime the watcher/ driver had taken fright at seeing Gerry and Jez talking then Jane Tanner witnessing the abduction, so he turned tail and scarpered, driving off in the opposite directioin (south).
By this time, he had been on the little car parking area opposite the Tapas reception and he would have had to pass Gerry and Jez to pick up Madeleine and the abductor..
This little car park can, I believe, be accessed directly via the (balcony) building and the rear garden. No need for the driver to walk thru public places, so effectively hidden in plain sight
A perfect set up. Nothing to go wrong .... but it did !
Only a theory, but it works
Does this take place after Gerald looked at Madeleine in her bed?Using VERY BASIC logic.
Using VERY BASIC logic.
Yes it must have done.
..Probably light (torch or lighter) signals might have been used to signal the all clear, etc...In the early photos you will see no person with a lighter.
Are you saying that getting names, contact details and areas searched from a group of holidaymakers and local expats was an 'elementary protocol'? When should all these searchers have been rounded up and questioned then? Should they have been formally interviewed or just informally questioned?
Sigh ... we have had this conversation before ... groundhog day is so terribly boring for me, obviously you find it something else
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6338.msg242620#msg242620
The watcher must have seen Jeremy Wilkins approaching just before Gerry came out, then he saw Gerry emerging and stopping to speak with Jeremy. Nevertheless he gave a signal to go ahead? I wonder why he didn't wait until the coast was clear?Because he was simple or old, doddery and not in the know? Well!, to use a torch or fag lighter to signal instead of a laser pointer?
Because he was simple or old, doddery and not in the know? Well!, to use a torch or fag lighter to signal instead of a laser pointer?
You could try answering my question, it's not difficult. When should the PJ have carried out the 'elementary protocol' of collecting names, contact details and areas searched from those who searched before the police arrived?
You have this 'thing' about firing off questions showing your ignorance of ~ in this case ~ standard procedure ... just for the sake of pointless point scoring. So boring and predictable.
I don't fire off statements as fact which I can't support when questioned though. When should the PL have taken names,contact details and areas searched from the holidaymakers and locals who searched before the police got there? Should be easy to answer with your knowledge of standard procedure. 8**8:/:
You raise a good point about the areas searched but unfortunately we will never really know. The fact that in the early days the British police were asking for civilians who may have assisted in the searches for Madeleine on the night of her disappearance suggests no record of either participants or areas searched was collated.
I think this was inefficient use of resources and an under evaluation of the assistance given.
BRITISH HOLIDAY MAKERS ASKED BY POLICE TO HELP FURTHER WITH HUNT FOR MADELEINE MCCANN
Anne Harrison, Detective Chief Superintendent from the NPIA said
“We also want anyone who took part in the initial search for Madeleine that took place before the Portuguese police arrived at the scene of her abduction but who have not yet come forward to contact us on 0800 096 1233.”
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/press_release-ceop.pdf
You said that the PJ failed to carry out the 'elementary protocol' above. I still would like to know at what point in time they should have got names, contact details and areas searched from the above mentioned people?
The watcher must have seen Jeremy Wilkins approaching just before Gerry came out, then he saw Gerry emerging and stopping to speak with Jeremy. Nevertheless he gave a signal to go ahead? I wonder why he didn't wait until the coast was clear?Sorry Gunit, but you are wrong..
In the early photos you will see no person with a lighter.No ... and neither have I seen definite photos of an abductor, but what is wrong with my thinking the torch or lighter signals possible?
Have you found any one with a torch?
I think it was plannedI'd suggest Occam's razor, Sadie.
Probably light (torch or lighter) signals might have been used to signal the all clear, etc.
If using the Block 6 balcony over looking the side of 5A. then it would idealy need a group of three, altho it could have been done by two.
1. Watcher/director/ driver
2. Lifter (someone with some medical knowledge and also preferably had to be someone known to Madeleine)
3. Main adductor (standing outside 5A) watchig for signals from no1 across the road and also passing things (drugs etc) thru the window and directing / encouraging the lifter.
He also had the key and opened and closed the front door using only the ley, so no fingerprints.
We used to call him Bundleman but we seem to call him Tannerman now.
The lifter passed Madeleine to him then scarpered, possibly back to the staff quarters.
He expected to be picked up with Madeleine in his arms from Block 5 car park entrance, but as the car was late and he he was impatient and frightened, he walked to meet the car at Jane Tanner corner.
In the meantime the watcher/ driver had taken fright at seeing Gerry and Jez talking then Jane Tanner witnessing the abduction, so he turned tail and scarpered, driving off in the opposite directioin (south).
By this time, he had been on the little car parking area opposite the Tapas reception and he would have had to pass Gerry and Jez to pick up Madeleine and the abductor..
This little car park can, I believe, be accessed directly via the (balcony) building and the rear garden. No need for the driver to walk thru public places, so effectively hidden in plain sight
A perfect set up. Nothing to go wrong .... but it did !
Only a theory, but it works
No ... and neither have I seen definite photos of an abductor, but what is wrong with my thinking the torch or lighter signals possible?
Strange question Pegasus. 8)-)))
"..ran out into the car park of our holiday apartment, flying from end to end, yelling desperately"I must look this up in the book because I really like it. It sounds like the absolutely obvious.
Source: KM book
BTW this was very soon after the rush of 8 people from restaurant to the gate.
I've posted it because I think this is not strange at all.
It is completely understandable behavior
It is probably what I would have done in the same event if my child was missing.
I don't know how many people were in the apartment.
I must look this up in the book because I really like it. It sounds like the absolutely obvious.
Problema. Kate, thinking Madeleine had been abducted with front window open, did what? This was after she had entered 5A from the rear on her check.
She went to the bedroom window and looked out. I don't know the precise page number or precise quote. I'm a**l but not that a**l.
What did she see? I would LOVE to know as I think it is important. I don't know, cos she didn't say.
OK, move on, littley abducted with entrance or exit via front of apartment and I have just entered out 5A by the rear. What comes next? Surely "out into the car park of our holiday apartment, flying from end to end, yelling desperately"?
Perhaps Smithman was strolling away from apartment 5A, carrying Madeleine in his arms, towards an encounter with the Smiths just a few hundred metres and a few minutes away.
How would I know? I don't know what Kate saw when she looked through the window. I don't know why she did not rush to search the car park.
Sorry Gunit, but you are wrong..
The balcony was set back making the view of people leaving the Tapas difficult. It was necessary to lean out to just see the tapas reception and the west side of the street..
But the corner of the building was jutting out a good way [1 metre?], This made it impossible for a watcher on that balcony to lean out far enough to see Jez coming up on the eastern side of the road .... or emerging from the little parking area opposite the Tapas Reception
Gerry had come down the steps and started in the direction of the Tapas reception and I believe the watcher then gave the signal to go ahead. He couldn't see Jez at all.
RA: You were the last one to see Madeleine because Gerry was playing tennis. Is that right?
Kate McCann: I can't...
Gerry McCann: I saw her... I saw her and, errm... I thought how beautiful she was and how lucky I was to be the father of three children.
The Madrid-based psychiatrist - who has never met the couple - said Mr McCann's only concern during the interview was to "control" his wife.
He said: "All he worried about was
controlling her. It's extraordinary.
Whenever she opened her mouth
to talk he squeezed her hand - and
all this because the key to this
mystery is definitely with her."
He added: "It is he who
dominates the whole situation. He is
aware of everything and knows he
has to control her and her
problematic personality so that she
does not go too far in front of the
cameras and speak too much."
Mr McCann, also 39, did whisper
a warning to his wife at the end of
the interview, telling her not to
speak until her microphone was
taken off.
A Madrid based Psychiatrist who has never met The couple.
RA: You were the last one to see Madeleine because Gerry was playing tennis. Is that right?
Kate McCann: I can't...
Gerry McCann: I saw her... I saw her and, errm... I thought how beautiful she was and how lucky I was to be the father of three children.
The Madrid-based psychiatrist - who has never met the couple - said Mr McCann's only concern during the interview was to "control" his wife.
He said: "All he worried about was
controlling her. It's extraordinary.
Whenever she opened her mouth
to talk he squeezed her hand - and
all this because the key to this
mystery is definitely with her."
He added: "It is he who
dominates the whole situation. He is
aware of everything and knows he
has to control her and her
problematic personality so that she
does not go too far in front of the
cameras and speak too much."
Mr McCann, also 39, did whisper
a warning to his wife at the end of
the interview, telling her not to
speak until her microphone was
taken off.
Do you think we could have a bit less of the "body language experts" turning a buck on Madeleine's case ... we too have our "experts" frequenting the couches of television studios pontificating on everything from breast cancer to trolling ... doesn't mean a thing.
The myths have been blown out of the water and discredited on many occasions ~ let's stick with 'Strange Witness Statements' ...
A Madrid based Psychiatrist who has never met The couple.
5:15 Gerry to Kate "Don't say anything until the microphone is off."
The Madrid-based psychiatrist - who has never met the couple - said Mr McCann's only concern during the interview was to "control" his wife. He said: "All he worried about was controlling her. It's extraordinary."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-ry8QhW4AE1FjD.jpg)
5:15 Gerry to Kate "Don't say anything until the microphone is off."
The interpreter was speaking over whatever Gerry said at that point. Is there a way of hearing what Gerry actually said to her? Even if he had said that... so what? It was clearly a hostile interview.
Anyone being a 'lookout' wouldn't have been on that balcony then in my opinion. No point if you can't see the Tapas entrance is there? That's where any interuption is going to come from.By leaning out the slightest bit, they can see the tapas restaurant entrance, so watch the comings and goings
Balcony to rear of block 6 is good. Front of block 6 is not so good. We have the testimony of the lady visiting in 605. Unless it was her, we have to go up. Balu and Berry on the balcony of 606 that night, which cuts the options.
So we are looking at the levels above ground floor, on the balcony at the rear. That means access to the balcony, and that means access to the relevant apartment. Now the timescale is getting very complex.
It could have happened that way, but I am having trouble with the trigger.
5:15 Gerry to Kate - Don't say anything until the microphone is off.
The Madrid-based psychiatrist - who has never met the couple - said Mr McCann's only concern during the interview was to "control" his wife. He said: "All he worried about was controlling her. It's extraordinary."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-ry8QhW4AE1FjD.jpg)
5:15 Gerry to Kate - Don't say anything until the microphone is off.
The Madrid-based psychiatrist - who has never met the couple - said Mr McCann's only concern during the interview was to "control" his wife. He said: "All he worried about was controlling her. It's extraordinary."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-ry8QhW4AE1FjD.jpg)
Perhaps he had this on his mind? About the same time IIRC.
https://youtu.be/UMSzIG4a5cw
https://youtu.be/UMSzIG4a5cw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMSzIG4a5cw#t=20
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMSzIG4a5cw#t=20[/youtube]
JOHN, Why is it that no youtube videos, which I post, work any more?
Please can you help me?
Delete the s=secure of http then it will work.
The beauty of the balcony to the N(W) of block 6 is that it has extensive views in all directions except for the eastern pavement of Rua Dr F G Martins. They can see anyone coming from afar, except for Jez who was on the eastern pavement.
It is also a public balcony so they did not have to rent an apartment to view the scene.
The Balcony to the south(W) of block 6 has wonderful views of the tapas restaurants and the both pavements at the southern ends of Rua Dr FG Martins. By the same token , the reverse is the case as well.
Anyone watching from that balcony would be VERY obvious to anyone in the houses opposite and anyone coming up that street.
BUT
From this southern balcony, nothing can be seen of people approaching from the west, or east, along Dr Agastinho de Silva.,, and they would be danger areas for the abductor.
This balcony is also rather too well lit IMO by the fairly close street lamp opposite the Garden/ Tapas Reception and has lots of houses overlooking it. The watcher would be on show.
The apartment would also have had to have been rented, so that could be a danger to a person involved in an abduction.
IMO, the Southern balcony of block 6 is a non runner, but the N(W) balcony is a likely candidate.
And as Brietta has mentioned .... all the cigarette butts there are pointers to the likelyhood of the N(W) balcony being used.
It is also immediately opposite 5A, so light signals to the abductor would be simplicity itself.
A FURTHER THOUGHT.
This N(W) balcony is right opposite the lounge windows of 5A. I wonder if the lounge curtains were open?
If so, with a light in there, anyone on this N(W) balcony could probably watch Gerry and Matt moving around inside from a distance of only about 12-13 metres away. CREEPY !
Maybe even see the abductor walk into the bedroom and out again with Madeleine in his/her arms?
Now that's a thought !!! &%+((£
From memory, up block 6 at front and leaning out, I could see half way down block 5, but not the rear (gate, garden, patio), not the Jez/Gerry meeting point, and 100% definitely not the Tapas entrance.
Even if my memory is a bit off, that is a good place for monitoring the front of block 5. You get to see who is going into the car park, although the offset means you are guessing about who is going into which apartment.
As to what is happening just a little south of the mid-point of 5A, I classed the front of block 6 as a fail. Since I had no ability to view what was happening around the Tapas area or entrance, it was down to sheer hope that no one was checking the kids as I took the (hypothetical) walk from block 6 to block 5.
I'm sure there is a photo on here that shows you can see b****r all of the rear of 5A from the front of block 6.
This place (miscarriageofjustice) needs an index. In the event that I find something on here, what is my chance of finding it again when it is relevant?
Now for a very small diversion. I live near the 'Simple Minds' villa. Of 'don't you, forget about me' fame. I have been enjoying the kids who are obviously renting this site at the moment playing loud party music. It's 22.40 on Sat 6 June 2015, and the music has stopped. I can't imagine the kids have packed up for the night. Is it out to Lagos for more party time?
View from an upper (public?) area of Block 6.
From memory, up block 6 at front and leaning out, I could see half way down block 5, but not the rear (gate, garden, patio), not the Jez/Gerry meeting point, and 100% definitely not the Tapas entrance.Shining I cannot understand what you mean by front and back of block 6, but I think that you are calling tghe N(W) balcony the front?
Even if my memory is a bit off, that is a good place for monitoring the front of block 5. You get to see who is going into the car park, although the offset means you are guessing about who is going into which apartment.
As to what is happening just a little south of the mid-point of 5A, I classed the front of block 6 as a fail. Since I had no ability to view what was happening around the Tapas area or entrance, it was down to sheer hope that no one was checking the kids as I took the (hypothetical) walk from block 6 to block 5.
I'm sure there is a photo on here that shows you can see b****r all of the rear of 5A from the front of block 6.
This place (miscarriageofjustice) needs an index. In the event that I find something on here, what is my chance of finding it again when it is relevant?
Now for a very small diversion. I live near the 'Simple Minds' villa. Of 'don't you, forget about me' fame. I have been enjoying the kids who are obviously renting this site at the moment playing loud party music. It's 22.40 on Sat 6 June 2015, and the music has stopped. I can't imagine the kids have packed up for the night. Is it out to Lagos for more party time?
View from an upper (public?) area of Block 6.Mea culpa.
@Sadie @Shining have you been far end alleyway?I have not actually gone to the end of the alleyway.
I have not actually gone to the end of the alleyway.
I have been on 1 de Maio, immediately above that end. And I have gone down the passage between blocks 4 & 5.
Mea culpa.First or second floor, right opposite the balcony to 5A. Almost all can be seen from there ... and getaway car parked just behind in the car park opposite the Tapas Reception. Access to that out of public view, via the apartments garden straight into the car park and the getaway vehicle.
I was interested in the view from the other stairwell in block 6 and got this mixed up.
Your view is from the first floor up on the west end of block 6, which is accessible to the public, if you are happy to lurk-a-lot.
That particular vantage point shows the comings and goings in front of block 5 as well, though it has deficiencies in that respect.
Sorry! &%54%
@Sadie @Shining have you been far end alleyway?The alleyway between block 4 and 5 and the Tapas/ garden area?
Mea culpa.
I was interested in the view from the other stairwell in block 6 and got this mixed up.
Your view is from the first floor up on the west end of block 6, which is accessible to the public, if you are happy to lurk-a-lot.
That particular vantage point shows the comings and goings in front of block 5 as well, though it has deficiencies in that respect.
Sorry! &%54%
Yep accessible to the public.I agree with you that anyone placed on the west end of block 6, whether on the ground floor or up above, has a view that is decent to good for carrying out a snatch.
So I agree with you that the narrow alleyway is a possibility and you agree wwith me that the balcony opposite 5A patio balcony is a possibility ?
Two possibilities.
I prefer the balcony for reasons that I have outlined in my post: June 06, 2015, 03:33:37 PM
FGS. The watcher can see right into apartment 5A from there !
The thought of that makes my skin come up in goose pimples
..... JEEZ
I can vividly remember, as a young woman, suddenly spotting a Peeping Tom watching me as I changed for bed. He had climbed up to a window at the back of our home and had smoked fags up there before I suddenly spotted him. My tiny bedroom was on the front of the house, but I had changed in full view of that window, knowing that as countryside was behind, we were not overlooked.
No-one expects a man to climb up to watch !
But as was possibly the case in 5A, a man opposite looking in !!!!! CREEPY !
I agree with you that anyone placed on the west end of block 6, whether on the ground floor or up above, has a view that is decent to good for carrying out a snatch.I have always felt that this abduction was extremely well planned and a team effort. Abducted to order , for someone else, an Elite.
I hope that is unequivocal enough.
Different positions on the W end of block 6 pose different problems.
Ground floor does not let you monitor the Tapas restaurant, though it does give you the entrance to the Tapas area, plus rear and enough of front of block 5. Unfortunately 605, the ground floor apartment W, was occupied by Portuguese residents.
One floor up and you get a good view of the Tapas restaurant, plus rear of 5A, plus enough of the front of block 5. You now need to hang out around that apartment (609?) plus dash down and across in one of the gaps in the parent check.
Top floor should give a great view of the Tapas restaurant, and because of the elevation, a better view over the front of block 5. Hang out there, then dash down 2 flights of stairs, across to 5, enter 5A, snatch Maddie, off into the night.
It could have happened therefore it should be considered.
Someone monitoring from the car park of block 4 was well placed and safe. Someone monitoring from south of block 4 (to a lesser extent block 5 re Matthew Oldfield's weird 9.30 check) was safe and well placed to execute the snatch. Simple.
I am struggling with Textusa at the moment, on much the same conundrum A jolly decent post, but why oh why go complex and ignore the simpler option?
High quality video of view from block 6 external stairs to apartment and restaurant
From 50:02 to 50:27
BBC Panorama http://youtu.be/Zqoj-pfBUnY
ETA see also 48:12 to 48:45
High quality video of view from block 6 external stairs to apartment and restaurantThanks Pegasus. Those extracts are well worth looking at..
From 50:02 to 50:27
BBC Panorama http://youtu.be/Zqoj-pfBUnY
ETA see also 48:12 to 48:45
From a report dated Sept 27th 2007 by officers Ramos Ricardo Brigantim Dordonnat of the Direcção Central de Combate ao Banditismo a witness told them "...it seemed to him that there were new plants at the bottom of the garden, without being able to indicate exactly which plants..." http://www.mccannfiles.com/id315.html
From a report dated Sept 27th 2007 by officers Ramos Ricardo Brigantim Dordonnat of the Direcção Central de Combate ao Banditismo a witness told them "...it seemed to him that there were new plants at the bottom of the garden, without being able to indicate exactly which plants..." http://www.mccannfiles.com/id315.html
- The owner of the villa said that he had been in the villa after the departure of the McCanns and that it seemed to him that there were new plants at the bottom of the garden, without being able to indicate exactly which plants, a fact that he commented on with the gardener F**** Do S*****.
- When the gardener was contacted that in spite of the fact that he does the maintenance of the garden, he had not detected anything abnormal in it, namely the existence of new plants, saying that he had some difficulty in maintaining a dialogue with the owner, because of the language barrier.
Not terribly clear, though...
Hi Carana, If the gardener found nothing abnormal or new plants, I am sure that must have been the case.
I suppose that it had to be checked out, because the owner had mentioned it.
Why is this important? Can someone tell me?
Hi Eleanor,
Not important, at all. Just another unimportant and irrelevant check that had to be done, because the owner thought there were new plants there.
However it is a strange statement, made by the owner, which according to the gardener was unfounded because there was nothing abnormal in the garden. %#&%4%
Why is this important? Can someone tell me?
Thanks, Anna. I thought for one ghastly moment someone thought The McCanns had buried Madeleine in the garden
That may well have been the reason for raising the point, but there doesn't appear to be anything more about it.
If that was the point, Carana, would there not have been an area of the garden that was higher than the rest?
It would mean replanting and levelling the whole garden. Now when would they do that? People were in the Villa all the time and I'm sure the family were being watched. A silly notion IMO.
I have no problem with the fact that it arose in a conversation with the owner... but there doesn't seem to be any corroboration of it, nor anything seen that looked suspicious. It may have been a throwaway comment in the context of a conversation about something else.
It's not clear how often the owner actually visited the garden. It's possible that someone from the family planted a few pots of kitchen herbs... If there had been a large, suspicious, mound of earth moved, I would have thought that that would have attracted the attention of the PJ / Harrison / Grime.Possibly the owner is just over-imaginative, it's not like we are talking with an expert of any kind is it. Even Mr Amaral didn't mention it.
Possibly the owner is just over-imaginative, it's not like we are talking with an expert of any kind is it. Even Mr Amaral didn't mention it.
You appear to have missed or not read the first part of that report Peg.The english you read is mistranslation (by one of us, not by PJ). See the original DCCB report in the files. It is a letter in portug language which the DCCB wrote on 27 Sept 2007 and sent to the Senior Investigating Officer. I can translate a sentence correctly if you want.
11- PROCESSSO Vol 11 Page 2945 to 2952
In a letter direct to GA from DCCB dated 27 September 2007 (Vol 11; p2945):
The DCCB got wind of the possible arrival of certain Englishmen from an information gathering organisation (CRG) supposedly with an assignment to clean places and things associated with the family. Looking into this possibility, the following data was obtained:
- The 'flower' villa was occupied by the family from 2 July through 9 September 2007; the contract was effective from 1 July and the key was returned to the letting agent on 10 September by the wife of an Anglican 'pastor' who practised in Luz.
- That lady later confirmed the delivery of the key and that while in her possession no-one had asked for it nor had she seen anything abnormal at the villa.
- A female journalist from ITV (UK) wished to rent the villa to make some films; her request was declined, the Dutch property owner, present in the property on 11 September, had already permitted Dutch friends of his to live there, and had authorised new shrubs to be planted in the garden.
Check this muppet out who was there in PDL at the time and was investigating the disappearance and hasn't got a clue about it. I've only watched the first few minutes.
In video does the behavioural analyst say "they locked the apartment" ?
Yes he thought the apartment was locked. A presumption but a big mistake.
if he's an example of the 'experts' the UK sent in to advise the PJ no wonder they weren't impressed. A definite muppet.
CEOP were after Murat and Gamble got sent the holiday photos. I bet the PJ never saw them.
Well i hope SY have crawled all over ceop or ex ceops files, would be iirreaponsible of them to not have
Yes he thought the apartment was locked. A presumption but a big mistake.So you are the expert, eh Pfinder?
So you are the expert, eh Pfinder?
You were there, on May 3rd 2007 ?
Angry sadie ?
I believe you have made many claims to have visited PDL extensively ?
What are your qualifications/training in your 'examination' of this case ?
What are yours? Does any member have those qualifications you imply are necessary? Why the constant ad hominem attacks, it would be more appropriate to occasionally counter argument with debate not snide, personal remarks.
What you have just said are personal remarks ?
Sadie has made numerous claims which you appear to believe or backup.
That itself is quite indicative.
You really do delight in making work for the mods with all these OT posts ... Sadie is entitled to her informed opinion ... I am entitled to mine ... just as you are entitled to yours.
That you spend so much time and energy criticising posters who do not share your opinion goes a long way to suggesting you have little constructive to say in support of it.
Yes CEOP should be properly investigated. The McCanns had CEOP manuals in the villa footage.
We absolutely support the McCann family," he (Jim Gamble) says, sitting in his glass-walled office in Pimlico, Central London.
"They are to be applauded for their tireless work to keep the campaign to find their daughter in the public consciousness. It is a case for every parent of 'There but by the grace of God, go I'."
5 OCTOBER 2007
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cop-hunts-down-net-pervs-511173
TO THE CONTRARY.
You can espouse any theory you wish, but you on a forum where those theories and i can use that word carefully will be looked at and avaluated.
and you say Sadie has an 'informed opinion'.
Informed where from exactly ?
She is just another poster with many 'pointers' and that is all.
You are OT.
Ah yes, I'd forgotten that one. The publications Amaral said were restricted to government agencies, but were in fact all available to the public...
CEOP were after Murat and Gamble got sent the holiday photos. I bet the PJ never saw them. The PJ couldn't even get background reports of the British about the McCanns and their friends. They were an absolute disgrace. Then later we find they had crecheman who said it was him in 2007. And the Gaspar statements turn up 6 months later. You can't believe all of these inexcusable mistakes.
- What would the PJ have done with thousands of holiday snaps? CEOP could run them through their software to check for known or suspected offenders - PT didn't have the capability.
- What background checks are you referring to? The UK would have automatically checked if any of them had a criminal record. The UK did run a credit check at the PJ's request (possibly the origin of the "McCanns sold Maddie myth") which Amaral somehow "misinterpreted" to mean that the McCanns didn't have credit cards.
- Its not clear whether crecheman had previously contacted one or both police forces (though it's possible that the UK screwed up on that one).
- There's no way of knowing from the files whether the Gaspar statements were indeed only sent over six months later or whether Paiva couldn't find them. If he didn't know about them, how could he have asked for them?
Amazing how Mr Amaral's misinformed assertions have stuck in the consciousness of many to the extent they are still being quoted today ... despite rebuttals and evidence to the contrary.
Offhand I can think of quite a few which I have seen being trotted out for another airing in other places ... and I am sure I will have missed many more.
From the two CEOP people sent over in the first few days or they were given to Gerry Mccann when he visited CEOP''s London offices in July I would imagine.
Chapter 17Wasn't it determined that a friend had loaned Kate the bible and it was her friend who had book marked that particular page?
IN THE McCANNS’ BEDROOM
The police who searched the house the McCanns were occupying, in particular their bedroom – the room where Gerald set up his office – report that the father and the mother are reacting very differently to the trouble that has befallen them.
Kate seems to be in mourning: numerous photos of Madeleine are pinned to the wall or placed on her bedside table. Spaced between them – as though watching over the child’s soul – a representation of a saint, a crucifix or a rosary can be seen. A bookmark bearing the effigy of a saint is slipped into a copy of the Bible, opening on the second book of Samuel, chapter XII, where the following verses can be read:
“[13] “I have sinned against the Lord,” David said.
Nathan replied, “The Lord forgives you; you will not die. [14] But because you have shown such contempt for the Lord in doing this, your child will die.” [15] Then Nathan went home.
The Lord caused the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David to become very ill.
[16] David prayed to God that the child would get well. He refused to eat anything and every night he went into his room and spent the night lying on the floor. [17] His court officials went to him and tried to make him get up, but he refused and would not eat anything with them. [18] A week later the child died, and David’s officials were afraid to tell him the news. They said, “While the child was living, David wouldn’t answer us when we spoke to him. How can we tell him that his child is dead? He might do himself some harm!”
[19] When David noticed them whispering to each other, he realized that the child had died. So he asked them, “Is the child dead?”
“Yes, he is,” they answered.
[20] David got up from the floor, had a bath, combed his hair, and changed his clothes. Then he went and worshiped in the house of the Lord. When he returned to the palace, he asked for food and ate it as soon as it was served. [21] “We don’t understand this,” his officials said to him. “While the child was alive, you wept for him and would not eat; but as soon as he died, you got up and ate!”
[22] “Yes,” David answered, “I did fast and weep while he was still alive. I thought that the Lord might be merciful to me and not let the child die. [23] But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Could I bring the child back to life? I will someday go to where he is, but he can never come back to me.”
[24] Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba. He had intercourse with her, and she bore a son, whom David named Solomon. The Lord loved the boy [25] and commanded the Prophet Nathan to name the boy Jedidiah, because the Lord loved him.”1
For David life had to go on.
In contrast, in the part of the room occupied by Gerald, the walls are bare, cold, no photos of his daughter. It’s here that he administers the Madeleine Fund, organises his very busy agenda and writes his blog. His current reading material – The Interpretation of Murder, by Jed Rubenfeld, Spirit Messenger, by Gordon Smith, It’s Not About The Bike: My Journey Back To Life, by Lance Armstrong, – leaves nothing at all to the imagination about the drama the family is living through. With amazement the police officers discover a series of books and manuals exclusively intended for police services and government agencies.
– Missing and Abducted Children: A Law-Enforcement Guide to Case Investigation and Program Management, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children;
– Training Courses, (CEOP Serious Organised Crime Agency – Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre);
– Making Every Child Matter…Everywhere, CEOP (Serious Organised Crime Agency – Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre).
Mark Harrison himself wonders how Gerald McCann could have obtained these books.
Wasn't it determined that a friend had loaned Kate the bible and it was her friend who had book marked that particular page?
Wasn't it determined that a friend had loaned Kate the bible and it was her friend who had book marked that particular page?Yes that is correct, statement is in files.
This may very well be true, but they clearly didn't find anything useful, despite the area crawling with sex offenders.
Is that in the fantasyland chapter?
Yes that is correct, statement is in files.
Chapter 17
IN THE McCANNS’ BEDROOM
The police who searched the house the McCanns were occupying, in particular their bedroom – the room where Gerald set up his office – report that the father and the mother are reacting very differently to the trouble that has befallen them.
Kate seems to be in mourning: numerous photos of Madeleine are pinned to the wall or placed on her bedside table. Spaced between them – as though watching over the child’s soul – a representation of a saint, a crucifix or a rosary can be seen. A bookmark bearing the effigy of a saint is slipped into a copy of the Bible, opening on the second book of Samuel, chapter XII, where the following verses can be read:
“[13] “I have sinned against the Lord,” David said.
Nathan replied, “The Lord forgives you; you will not die. [14] But because you have shown such contempt for the Lord in doing this, your child will die.” [15] Then Nathan went home.
The Lord caused the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David to become very ill.
[16] David prayed to God that the child would get well. He refused to eat anything and every night he went into his room and spent the night lying on the floor. [17] His court officials went to him and tried to make him get up, but he refused and would not eat anything with them. [18] A week later the child died, and David’s officials were afraid to tell him the news. They said, “While the child was living, David wouldn’t answer us when we spoke to him. How can we tell him that his child is dead? He might do himself some harm!”
[19] When David noticed them whispering to each other, he realized that the child had died. So he asked them, “Is the child dead?”
“Yes, he is,” they answered.
[20] David got up from the floor, had a bath, combed his hair, and changed his clothes. Then he went and worshiped in the house of the Lord. When he returned to the palace, he asked for food and ate it as soon as it was served. [21] “We don’t understand this,” his officials said to him. “While the child was alive, you wept for him and would not eat; but as soon as he died, you got up and ate!”
[22] “Yes,” David answered, “I did fast and weep while he was still alive. I thought that the Lord might be merciful to me and not let the child die. [23] But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Could I bring the child back to life? I will someday go to where he is, but he can never come back to me.”
[24] Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba. He had intercourse with her, and she bore a son, whom David named Solomon. The Lord loved the boy [25] and commanded the Prophet Nathan to name the boy Jedidiah, because the Lord loved him.”1
For David life had to go on.
In contrast, in the part of the room occupied by Gerald, the walls are bare, cold, no photos of his daughter. It’s here that he administers the Madeleine Fund, organises his very busy agenda and writes his blog. His current reading material – The Interpretation of Murder, by Jed Rubenfeld, Spirit Messenger, by Gordon Smith, It’s Not About The Bike: My Journey Back To Life, by Lance Armstrong, – leaves nothing at all to the imagination about the drama the family is living through. With amazement the police officers discover a series of books and manuals exclusively intended for police services and government agencies.
– Missing and Abducted Children: A Law-Enforcement Guide to Case Investigation and Program Management, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children;
– Training Courses, (CEOP Serious Organised Crime Agency – Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre);
– Making Every Child Matter…Everywhere, CEOP (Serious Organised Crime Agency – Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre).
Mark Harrison himself wonders how Gerald McCann could have obtained these books.
Wasn't it determined that a friend had loaned Kate the bible and it was her friend who had book marked that particular page?
Angry sadie ?Not angry stephen.
I believe you have made many claims to have visited PDL extensively ?
What are your qualifications/training in your 'examination' of this case ?
Not angry stephen.
Well perhaps a little that someone so ill informed, and lacking in understanding as Pfinder, keeps making claims as to the way things happened.
With invariably her "theories" pointing to The Mccanns as having been involved.
All without a shred of evidence.
And she doesn't even have the decency to acknowledge that it is only in her opinion. A theory and nothing else.
Listen up Myth maker. I back up my theories and they fit. Yours have no substance. If you watch an unlocked apartment you don't have to raise noisy shutters. The village idiot didn't do it and you don't park a getaway car opposite the entrance where they all were. Your theories are laughable. She was hidden under beach rocks most probably and then inside somewhere until her final journey.@pathfinder your beach rock theory is a guess IMO. And to give it any accurate meaning you need to say which beach and which section. Do you mean the big east beach or the little west beach or Burgau beach? Here is what one of the world's top investigators recommends "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts". Also IMO it is impossible for the statement you are so interested in to be exactly as it appears.
"Someone saw Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously."
I'm still interested in that statement.
Listen up Myth maker. I back up my theories and they fit. Yours have no substance. If you watch an unlocked apartment you don't have to raise noisy shutters. The village idiot didn't do it and you don't park a getaway car opposite the entrance where they all were. Your theories are laughable. She was hidden under beach rocks most probably and then inside somewhere until her final journey.Hey, Pfinder
"Someone saw Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously."
I'm still interested in that statement.
The marked passage in the bible did indeed note the loss of a child ... that child was not Madeleine ... it was the miscarried child of the friend who had lent the bible.
In the name of sanity how could any professional police force manage to adulterate the information contained in this statement into an accusation against Kate McCann and find treasured photographs of her missing daughter "suspicious".
**snip
On Friday the 11th of May 2007 we heard rumours that the Portuguese were going to stop the searches. After having passed this information to Kate we met up in the Tapas bar in the resort between 9:30 and 9:45 in the morning. We met for only a half hour to 40 minutes as Kate had to attend a police interview.
During this meeting, I offered Kate a bible. This happened in the sequence of emotions that Kate was obviously feeling and after our having sat down to speak. We did not know each other well as she is predominantly my wifes friend. I am the leader of a South Wigston team run out of the Corporation for Exercise and Salvation, Leicestershire. I have a particular interest in the bible and the form in which it was written. I frequented the course ?Alpha Course? (an introduction to Christianity) a recommended to Kate some of the passages in the bible that she could rand to help comfort. There was a dedication from me to my wife on the first page, as it had previously been a gift from me to her. I have a tendency to mark pages and passages in the bible and even though this was my spouses bible, there were many marked/tagged passages relevant to the both of us. This happened before Madeleines disappearance.
I encouraged Kate to read Psalms X and XX of the Old Testament as I felt these were relevant to her. They are both believers. The Psalms reveal a confidence in God, in his justice and in the question which can be asked ?Why do bad things happen?. Psalms XX is a small oration asking Him to guide and illuminate our path in times of anguish.
The passage which is marked in my wifes bible I believe is Samuel 2:12. This passage is very significant for me and my wife but likely has so significance for Kate. I interpret this passage as saying that even though we cannot be with the two children that we have no lost, we will find them one day.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PE-PA.htm
@pathfinder your beach rock theory is a guess IMO. And to give it any accurate meaning you need to say which beach and which section. Do you mean the big east beach or the little west beach or Burgau beach? Here is what one of the world's top investigators recommends "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts". Also IMO it is impossible for the statement you are so interested in to be exactly as it appears.
It is logical guesswork. Suspect heading towards church / sea so church side rocks at 10:05. Elementary.
(http://i18.servimg.com/u/f18/18/18/19/63/bellpo10.jpg)
Don't we already have a thread on Lord Tim Bell where this was discussed in great detail?
That is much better Pfinder, saying it is logical guesswork rather than fact.
Unfortunately whilst the logic could be right, it is only one of a multitude of options, cos all we KNOW is that Smithman was either going in a southerly or a westerly direction initially
.... but after that there were a number of ways that he could have gone. Several turnings.
Yours is just one, and IMO one of the most unlikely.
Cos as Shining kindly pointed out, to get to the rocky area by the church, he had to pass several places where there were likely to be people around at that time of night, including bars the atm cash machine.
Only the Smiths have come forward to our knowledge of seeing that man so it wasn't that busy at that time of night on a Thursday. Kelly's Bar was not busy from receipt bills taken on the night. This was not a busy weekend night and more importantly he could reach the rocks within minutes of passing the Smiths.
If only the Smith family had realised the implication of witnessing a lone man carrying a child on the night a child had vanished at the time and not a fortnight later many things could perhaps have been clarified.
Nine eye witnesses including children and chief suspect. He's never come forward so he is the starting point. It's no surprise SY searches happened close to that sighting. Amaral was about to properly investigate the sighting and bring the Smiths back but was removed. His officers missed the CCTV camera.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Pdlchurchshore-1.jpg)
What do you mean he was about to investigate them? Amaral had already got them back in May 2007...M.Smith provided more information in Sept 2007 and therefore Mr Amaral was arranging for those witnesses to visit Portugal again in early Oct 2007 to make further statements. His plans to do that (and IMO his ability to follow up on the DCCB report) were scuppered by his removal on Oct 2nd. The removal of an SIO at this crucial stage, just for correctly criticising foreign influence on his investigation, is unacceptable IMO.
M.Smith provided more information in Sept 2007 and therefore Mr Amaral was arranging for those witnesses to visit Portugal again in early Oct 2007 to make further statements. His plans to do that (and IMO his ability to follow up on the DCCB report) were scuppered by his removal on Oct 2nd. The removal of an SIO at this crucial stage, just for correctly criticising foreign influence on his investigation, is unacceptable IMO.
I haven't found any correspondence concerning this planned new visit in the files. I'm not sure what purpose it would have served... How many of them was he planning on bringing over?The published files contain only a fraction of all the documents, and not the flight and hotel bookings, which probably IMO would have been made the days following Oct 2nd.
It is logical guesswork. Suspect heading towards church / sea so church side rocks at 10:05. Elementary.
The published files contain only a fraction of all the documents, and not the flight and hotel bookings, which probably IMO would have been made the days following Oct 2nd.
The documents about M Smith providing more information to Gardai and LP in Sept 2007 are in the published files
Therefore there is no reason to doubt what Mr Amaral says, that he was arranging for some of these witnesses to fly to Portugal again early Oct 2007. Wouldn't you have done the same?
So "formal" identification" was one of the objects.
So "formal" identification" was one of the objects.
Formal identificiation, based on what?
Did the Tapas bar hold a quiz night of its own, or was Chaplins the only quiz in town?
Yes quiz that night.
At 21.00 did a kind of quiz with the guests who were having dinner in the restaurant.
She remembers that last Tuesday at the end of the quiz, she was invited to the table of nine guests who asked her to join them for a drink.
She was at their table for about fifteen to twenty minutes and it was there that she met Madeleine's father, who directly invited her to the table, however, she does not know whether Madeleines mother was also there.
When questioned, she said she was at the table from about 21.30 to 21.50.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NAJOUA_CHEKAYA.htm
The photographs of the group of the McCann's friends having been shown to her, the deponent
declares that from those photos seen she has some reservations about David Payne [in that] while
she thinks he was also there, she had not noted his presence.
That same quiz girl I've been told was doing the quiz at Chaplins that same night at 10pm. Maybe a line to investigate.
You've been told? Any confirmation about that one?
The Scandal at Chaplin's story emerged at exactly the same time as the 'Pamela Fenn heard crying for 75 minutes one night' story. This was actually around a month before Mrs Fenn's PJ statement was made.
The two stories emerged in a reader comment to a tabloid newspaper story.
Have a think about what a tabloid could do with this story, Scandal at Chaplin's, if it could be confirmed in any way.
It never emerged in the press. The comment got pulled from the relevant newspaper thread, fairly quickly.
Mrs Fenn denied talking to the press, though I've no doubt they would have checked the crying story with her.
Now think, who would one check with on the Scandal at Chaplin's part?
If this story was true, who has the absolute power to sink the McCanns?
I covered this in Scandal at Chaplins on ShiningInLuz, but it is simply tosh.
Kate phoned from something like 10:15 to 10:25. Add another 5 or 6 minutes to get to Chaplin's. Was Kate interested in another quiz or not?
Why are all the quiz participants keeping quiet on this?
I believe I know of the person who is the source for this (note I said believe). From what I have heard, this is malicious gossip, designed to smear the McCanns.
It is a very old rumour from a poster on either the Mirror or 3As. Whether it was malicious in intent or just gossip-mongering, there doesn't seem to be anything to substantiate it.
The Chaplins part is incorrect. The crying part is true but the night is wrong. PF heard the crying on Wed night IMO.
Wednesday is the solution that fits what mother and child said pathfinder.
Wednesday is the solution that fits what mother and child said pathfinder.
Not by commenters that say there is no proof it was anyone in 5a crying and what about Mrs Fenns statement? She didn't hear anything on the Wednesday did she? Nor Rachel, nor all the "checkers" every half hour
Yes for 75 minutes. Rachel must be deaf or PF is telling the truth.
I will go with the latter and yes they must ALL have been deaf or they didn't go check every 30 mins!!
Not by commenters that say there is no proof it was anyone in 5a crying and what about Mrs Fenns statement? She didn't hear anything on the Wednesday did she? Nor Rachel, nor all the "checkers" every half hourWednesday fits so extremely well for timing and other significant details Mercury - IMO it is the only possible night. PF statement was transcribed wrong IMO and possibly something like "the night before that" was misunderstood as "tuesday night".
Mind you no evidence at all for any crying except Mrs Fenns for the Tuesday...why dispute this
Wednesday fits so extremely well for timing and other significant details Mercury - IMO it is the only possible night. PF statement was transcribed wrong IMO and possibly something like "the night before that" was misunderstood as "tuesday night".
Interesting, I too thnk they did not check every half an hour, and their saying so doesn't make sense anyway, when one came back and the other allegedly checked 10/15 mins later. Must have been musical chairs in the Bar all night.
I can't understand why Gerry McCann said David Payne checked the children on the Wednesday night. Everyone else agreed that the Payne's never checked any children whatsoever. We do have the fitness instructor though who didn't remember him being at the table on the Tuesday. For the reasons given By Jeremy Wilkins I think she would have noticed him. She wasn't sure about Kate being present also.
If it was Tuesday, not Wednesday when Kate was upset with Gerry perhaps she left the restaurant and DP went to see if she was OK, as he did on the Thursday. Crying on the Wednesday should have been heard by Rachael, or, as has been said, by other checkers. Perhaps DP and Kate went for a walk and talk or something. Gerry wouldn't check thinking they were at the apartment, so there could have been crying. Doesn't explain why the phone calls put Kate in the apartment though. I thought they could only prove people were in the village using phone records, however, not pinpoint their location so precisely?
What date was the hair salon video filmed? http://youtu.be/gZm8t70IGAY
Sorry ... the significance of this video escapes me entirely?Listen to the audio.
Listen to the audio.
My interest in Lizzie Taylor's oeuvres is zilch ... as should everyone else's be who considers truth and accuracy of any value.
Pity she wasn't on hand to surreptitiously film her targets rollicking in Oscars or even the abductor in the act at apartment 5A.
It is interesting though that originally two horses came from the same stable which gives one pause for illuminating thought.
My interest in Lizzie Taylor's oeuvres is zilch ... as should everyone else's be who considers truth and accuracy of any value.The video is of a hair salon, it does not serve horsd'ouevres and does not do haircuts for horses, the relevance is crying.
Pity she wasn't on hand to surreptitiously film her targets rollicking in Oscars or even the abductor in the act at apartment 5A.
It is interesting though that originally two horses came from the same stable which gives one pause for illuminating thought.
Defo the latter.
On this day, May 1, the children were asleep, as she put them to bed around 7:15/7:30 and was sure they were sleeping.
Finished dinner around 11 PM, and together with Gerry, left for the apartment.
She thinks they went to the flat four times: Gerry twice and she twice. Approx. 9, 9:30, 10, and 10:30PM.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Which waiter is supposed to have been speaking on this documentary excerpt? Or was it a Tapas Bar tender repeating gossip?
The video is of a hair salon, it does not serve horsd'ouevres and does not do haircuts for horses, the relevance is crying.
BTW you can spot a good detective by the shortness of his/her hair (a consequence of daily undercover visits to hair salons to gather vital clues from hairdressers).
8)-))) as one does(a consequence of daily undercover visits to hair salons to gather vital clues from hairdressers).
Crying ?? Oscars ?? Horses for courses ... from the same stable.
The Kutting Room, Praia da Luz.
Familiar to some of the people SY have spoke to as witnesses.
Former place of employment of one person whose partner the PJ were rather interested in.
Just the right place to start some local myths.
Can anyone tell me why Gerry McCann said this on 10th May?
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children. On this day he and KATE had already left the rear door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their colleagues to check on the children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Not one other person confirmed that DP checked the McCann children, in fact everyone agreed that the Paynes never checked their own children physically because they had the monitor. Also, not one of the others checked the McCann children until Matt did so at 9.30pm on 3rd May, as far as I know.
as it's a double translation ...how accurate do you expect it to be
Can anyone tell me why Gerry McCann said this on 10th May?
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children. On this day he and KATE had already left the rear door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their colleagues to check on the children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Not one other person confirmed that DP checked the McCann children, in fact everyone agreed that the Paynes never checked their own children physically because they had the monitor. Also, not one of the others checked the McCann children until Matt did so at 9.30pm on 3rd May, as far as I know.
Gerry says 'he thinks DP also went to his apartment' on the 2nd. IOW he wasn't sure about it - at the time he was being interviewed.
Anyone who is expecting 9 different people - to have 100% accurate/identical recall - not only about every little thing they said/did - but also what 8 other people said/did during the previous days is being extremely unrealistic IMO.
For example - if I remember correctly, Russell originally thought that Jayne had left the table at the same time as Gerry on the 3rd and not 5 or 10 mins later. Obviously once she had reminded him that she was still sitting at the table when they began wondering where Gerry had got to - he would have realised he'd got that wrong.
Maybe a similar thing happened when Gerry was trying to remember back to 'who did what' on the 2nd May.
As they couldn't see into the future - none of them had any reason to make a point of carefully committing to memory - everything they did/said throughout the week. They were on holiday not military manouvres - when a report may well have been required at the end of the exercise.
I don't see how an analysis of what was said is possible without a verbatim record of the interview. A shortened summarised version, where we don't get to see the questions or a full version of the answers - is just too inadequate for that purpose IMO.
I could accept it if he'd mentioned any of the others in the group. But why the only one who didn't check any children whatsoever on any evening throughout the week? Sorry, it doesn't make sense. He also tried to infer that the other's checked and that's why the door was left unlocked. No-one else checked until 3rd May. Don't forget, I'm assuming that the statements are correct because some statements are accepted as correct by some and others are questioned. That's not logical. either all incorrect or all correct.
KATE slept in the children's bedroom, in the bed next to the window, because he was snoring. (GM 10 May)
I decided to go and sleep with the children. This was highly unusual; unprecedented, even: the only occasions when we ever slept apart were when our jobs and on-call duties dictated it. I wasn’t the type to flounce off to the spare room and never would have done so at home. (Madeleine)
And feverishly washing stains the following morning instead of watching you daughter sailing or going to the beach with the others. Have you gave a full account of the truth? How did you feel about your husband on the day your daughter disappeared to take the 'unprecedented' step of sleeping in the spare bed? And left in the apartment again on your own with the kids whilst the rest were watching your husband and other guys playing tennis. Maybe you didn't want to take the kids out to watch him.
I went over to see err Gerry at the err you know tennis courts, just to see you know what was happening, and err decided that we'd, you know I'd come, come back to play tennis and err Gerry had asked me just to pop in and check everything was alright err with Kate. (DP) &%+((£
I could accept it if he'd mentioned any of the others in the group. But why the only one who didn't check any children whatsoever on any evening throughout the week? Sorry, it doesn't make sense. He also tried to infer that the other's checked and that's why the door was left unlocked. No-one else checked until 3rd May. Don't forget, I'm assuming that the statements are correct because some statements are accepted as correct by some and others are questioned. That's not logical. either all incorrect or all correct.
they are not all correct or incorrect...they are all suspect
Why do people refuse to accept a quote from the files when it doesn't fit with their theories, but are happy to quote those which do? Illogical! I think Martin Grime said that dog alerts do have evidential value without forensics to support them. If you disagree then my defence is that his report was mistranslated. 8(>((
IMO 'common sense' plays a large part in working out whether or not a mistranslation/misunderstanding has occurred.
IMO many sceptics simply do not recognise the serious implications of the language barrier - when one wrongly translated word or even a typing error can totally alter the meaning of what a person had actually said.
For example:-
Quote from Fiona Payne's summarised statement on 16th May. (talking about RM)
Quote
- That she never saw this individual before, and saw him for the first time, as stated, on the night of May 3rd, around 22H39, outside, and next to the door of the McCANN apartment in the company of GNR elements, who had arrived.
- That at this point, one and a half hours had passed since KATE McCANN had noted that her daughter had disappeared.
Unquote
The time given of 22H39 is obviously wrong.
Common sense dictates that it is a simple typing error - and should have been 23H29 - which unlike 22H39 - actually is 1.1/2 hours after Kate raised the alarm. However due to an error by the typist - where IMO the nos 2&3 have been transposed - the statement at that point is incorrect.
Common sense also dictates that as Martin Grime gives his warning about 'no evidential value' numerous times, there is no way such a massive mistranslation (had there been one) would go unnoticed over and over again - either by himself or others.
There is evidence that names of people in nearby homes who were spoken to by the PJ in the days after the disappearance were incorrectly recorded.The PJ checked ID documents of people they took statements from.
How crucial could that have been when entering a name into a computer to check criminal history?
The PJ checked ID documents of people they took statements from.
So why are names incorrectly recorded on the typed reports?
So why are names incorrectly recorded on the typed reports?Usually names of witnesses are written correctly, but there are exceptions, which one are you looking at?
IIRC one was the chap with a german wife. It took a lot of working out, who he was. I cant remember the name now.There was ß transcribed as b.
So why are names incorrectly recorded on the typed reports?
There was ß transcribed as b.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EXTERNAL.htm
@misty You have got one of those names wrong. That letter is a ß.
@misty You have got one of those names wrong. That letter is a ß.
@misty You have got one of those names wrong. That letter is a ß.
Ok, so it's an ess-testt, which makes it Sabine Rosner.Usually transcribed into english as "ss" Misty.
Usually transcribed into english as "ss" Misty.
http://theportugalnews.com/news/portuguese-police-still-in-the-dark-over-moroccan-link/22404
Thank you for that. So we have another variation of the German "s". (Most of the googling seems to show Rosner with one "s" in English & there is a match for her birth city)But Misty you should notice that at least 2 British police officers took part in the search of this residence at about 9am on
All this merely illustrates the errors which could have been made in background checks on people.
It also illustrates how the translators could have easily used incorrect words if the originals were not typed up correctly.
But Misty you should notice that at least 2 British police officers took part in the search of this residence on 8th May, and it is those Brit officers who would have spoken to the occupants and asked to see their passports. So already 2 of your 3 criticisms that the PJ got spelling wrong, are actually criticisms of Brit police.
??????Because Brit police were an integral part of Mr Amaral's investigation.
I'm lost, Pegasus.
Which residence, and when? And when can a foreign assisting police force insist on checking ID in a foreign country?
What B or 8?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F
Absolutely anything now gets turned into accusations that the PJ were incompetent, this must really annoy the Brit professionals who were present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F
Absolutely anything now gets turned into accusations that the PJ were incompetent, this must really annoy the Brit professionals who were present.
Because Brit police were an integral part of Mr Amaral's investigation.
They went with PJ on searches of residences, they provided phone experts, criminal behaviour experts, search experts, and more. The large group of Brit officers and experts of the LP and Met and NPIA and numerous other agencies who were helping Mr Amaral in PDL in May 2007 must be rather shocked when they read the desperate attempts to discredit their skilled work for Mr Amaral.
@misty you're right about it being the 9th I will correct my post.
However, at least 2 Brit officers were definitely present (possibly 3 if you do some basic maths).
The spelling is unimportant IMO but it is a good example of how Brit police were working with Mr Amaral.
If the spelling was unimportant, why did the PJ deem it necessary to pay SR a second visit to view the contents of her fridge?Lots of residences in that part of town were visited at that time.
Lots of residences in that part of town were visited at that time.
Were lots of residences visited twice in the very early days, or did the PJ target SM's building for special attention, including SR & KF's home?They are different buildings Misty.
Same shirt Eddie barked at?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/4g-1.jpg)(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/4May2007/kate-mccann-missing-british-3-year-old-girl-madeleine-mccann-in-portugal-0setFl.jpg)
Same shirt Eddie barked at?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/4g-1.jpg)(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/4May2007/kate-mccann-missing-british-3-year-old-girl-madeleine-mccann-in-portugal-0setFl.jpg)
They are different buildings Misty.
It's a big white and blue building on Rua Escola Primeira Misty.How do we know UK staff were accommodated there? Not challenging, I genuinely don't know the answer. And clearly, we are back into Smithman.
(Where some of the uk staff were accommodated).
How do we know UK staff were accommodated there? Not challenging, I genuinely don't know the answer. And clearly, we are back into Smithman.It's deduction ShiningInLuz from statements/location/colour etc that at least two apartments here (out of many dozens) were company-provided accom for some (not all) seasonal staff.
Thank you.It is of about 7 floors
Amsterdam 7 June ....Wasn't that the day after an interview in Berlin, and a near-diversion of a private jet to England?
Wasn't that the day after an interview in Berlin, and a near-diversion of a private jet to England?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CECILIA-DFC.htm
02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_278
Revised translation.
Processos Volume II
Pages 277-278
Witness Statement
Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo
Date/Time: 2007/05/06 22H00
Occupation: Public Relations
Place of Work: Millenium restaurant, OC.
She confirms that she is an employee of the OC, having signed a seven month contract in April this year. She worked in the resort last year, with the same functions and for the same period of time.
She says that her job is to receive guests at the entrance to the Millenium restaurant and check whether they have to pay for breakfast or whether this is included in their package. She works from 07.00 to 12.00 from Tuesdays to Saturdays. She says that she only attends to guests at breakfast time except on Wednesdays when there is Barbecue Night at the restaurant and when she welcomes guests for dinner, working from 18.00 to 22.00.
When asked, she says that due to her work she knows most of the guests given that most of them visit the Millenium as it is the only restaurant that serves breakfast.
When asked, she says that she knows the parents, the siblings and Madeleine. She received them for breakfast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, she does not know whether they went for breakfast on Sunday or Monday, as these were her days off.
She says that breakfast was served between 08.00 and 10.00 and that the McCanns would arrive between 08.00 and 09.00.
She says that the McCanns appeared to be a normal family and that the relation between the members of the family was very good. Madeleine appeared to be very attached to her father and was always clinging on to him. Given her public relations function she was always very nice to the guests and would get involved with the children, saying that Madeleine was very shy and did not respond to her. She says that the only contact she had with guests was at the entrance to the Millenium restaurant, she did not have a view of the tables or the Buffet area.
She heard about the disappearance on Friday morning 4th May from a colleague called Alice.
The resort is very calm, the witness only knows of a few minor thefts and is very surprised at the news. She has no information that could help locate Madeleine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mistaken witness?
Who knows? In theory she checked the paperwork to make sure they were entitled to take breakfast there, so it shouldn't have been a mistake just from seeing a similar family, she should have checked the name.
She checked the paperwork. She positively ID'd the McCann family as being in the Millenium for breakfast 3 days in a row. Yet she was wrong - so which family of 5 with a clingy daughter who resembled Madeleine did she witness?
Wasn't the Millenium the only CCTV footage recovered from Praia da Luz? Obviously they had the CCTV equipment ... maybe not for breakfast.
Are you thinking of the Paraiso restaraunt?
Possibly.
Video shop owner Simon Russell, the girl he spotted was Sarah Silva. It was a catamaran of high dimensions with the name "TROPICS".
(http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/16/77/69/72/compar10.jpg)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EXTERNAL.htm
(http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii530/cocquerelle/lag_zpsc692cb7b.png)
expatsblog.com
(http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/16/77/69/72/1_j18.jpg)
Eggman
(https://d24scnnyou6zi5.cloudfront.net/prvw/2.4638262.jpg)(https://d24scnnyou6zi5.cloudfront.net/prvw/2.4638319.jpg)
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00635/news-graphics-2007-_635206a.jpg)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-453724/Revealed-The-police-e-fit-Madeleines-abductor-thats-egg-parting.html
10 May 2007
There are currently 180 senior detectives and 800 beat officers on the case but there numbers will have to be "radically" slashed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1551163/Four-very-useful-leads-boost-Madeleine-hunt.html
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PROCESSO_4a.htm
From : Curtis Rachael (7438)
Sent : 25th September 2007 11:46
To : Task
Subject : FW : M2330 - forward to Portugal
Rec By : TPHONE : Serial : 534 : Ident : BC19 - 7767 1506 07/09/07
Phone : 011627xxxxx Not a TK
Location : Leic(e)s(ter) Nuffield Hosp(ital)/SCRAPTOFT LN. Leicester
Origin : Pippa York - Staff Member : Third Party
Text :
Has received a phone call from male in Kent - Don't know why he phoned Location - Mr Simon Russell, 017324xxxxx - Stated he had rang Scotland Yard but they were not interested. He was saying he had an address that needed checking out in Europe - 'xxx', Axxxxxxxx Rxxx - 3 villages in Europe with this address.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ASSORTED_SIGHTINGS_13.htm
Thank you for refreshing our memories on this on, Pathfinder.
They were apparently living on that boat while he worked at the Marina. Then they and IIRC the boat disappeared. I can find no details of that boat however.
I don't recall anything of them living in espiche either.
I found sightings elsewhere that were similar to this mans description................If I can find them again.
I have long been more than a little interested in this couple. But I have no idea of where to start looking.
The "Tropics" cat was being repaired.
The place where boats are repaired is the outer harbour.
https://goo.gl/maps/qDkH2
Fiona says they had "a glass of wine" with their meal each night. Gerry McCann says they "each" had a bottle of wine with their meal each night.
Sorry PF, not sure which part you thought was strange, but I was reading Gerry Mccanns Statement just earlier and noticed this.
Not exactly matching.
Seems this video is not available?
That is the interview where he said "confusion is good" albeit not in so many words
That is the interview where he said "confusion is good" albeit not in so many words
Fiona says they had "a glass of wine" with their meal each night. Gerry McCann says they "each" had a bottle of wine with their meal each night.
Sorry PF, not sure which part you thought was strange, but I was reading Gerry Mccanns Statement just earlier and noticed this.
Not exactly matching.
That is the interview where he said "confusion is good" albeit not in so many words
So Gerry never actually said, "Confusion is good?"
No he didn't - just another myth which is regularly bandied about by some sceptics. And when they do it - the fact that they do not post what he actually did say speaks volumes IMO.
No he didn't - just another myth which is regularly bandied about by some sceptics. And when they do it - the fact that they do not post what he actually did say speaks volumes IMO.
Below is what he actually said: He was talking about 'stories' in the press etc. which were so conflicting at times that at least people would realise they could not all be reporting the truth. And as we know they certainly were not - as all manner of scurrilous lies and rumours were being printed. I see nothing to criticise in that comment. Care to elaborate on why you apparently do?
quote
"And, in fact, one of the slight positives in all this is that there is so much rumour about what did and didn't happen, it's actually very difficult, if you're reading the newspaper, watching TV, to know what's true and what's not" -
Dr Gerald McCann, Scottish TV interview, 24 August 2007
In what way might he have found it to be "one of the slight positives?"
Because the leaks from The PJ were being exposed as lies.
But that's not what he says.
But that's not what he says.
Neither does he say, "Confusion is good." So all a trifle pathetic, don't you think?
That's what he meant. Confusion is good for the person(s) who did it because they don't know if they're on to them or not. But if the ones who did it could influence the investigation in any way then they could easily confuse it 8(0(*
So Gerry never actually said, "Confusion is good?"
Because the leaks from The PJ were being exposed as lies.
Are you a mind reader too?
Nobody knows why he uttered those words and it is ridiculous to speculate on what he meant. Have you never said something and then been concerned that it may have been misunderstood?
The FSS has still not provided the result of the technical analysis of the hair found in the boot of the car. Once more, Stuart has to contact the laboratory. Nothing has been done. We want to know two things: if the hair is indeed Madeleine’s, and if it comes from a living or a dead person. The FSS can only answer the first question. English colleagues present at the meeting raise the possibility of the hair being sent to other European laboratories which have the resources to clear up the second point for us: hair from a living or a dead person. But the FSS does not seem to want to part with the hair. They claim that using a colour comparison test they can establish if the hair belongs to Madeleine and in a second stage, identify the DNA profile. None of that will happen. We never find out if the hair was Madeleine’s or her parents’ or her brother’s or her sister’s, even though the laboratory has the DNA profiles of each member of the family.
Let’s remember: it is totally logical to find Madeleine’s DNA in the home, but absolutely not in a car rented more than twenty days after her disappearance. (TOTL)
Why didn't the FSS give the hair found in the car boot back so they could test if it was from a dead person?
That is totally not true....
The FSS has still not provided the result of the technical analysis of the hair found in the boot of the car. Once more, Stuart has to contact the laboratory. Nothing has been done. We want to know two things: if the hair is indeed Madeleine’s, and if it comes from a living or a dead person. The FSS can only answer the first question. English colleagues present at the meeting raise the possibility of the hair being sent to other European laboratories which have the resources to clear up the second point for us: hair from a living or a dead person. But the FSS does not seem to want to part with the hair. They claim that using a colour comparison test they can establish if the hair belongs to Madeleine and in a second stage, identify the DNA profile. None of that will happen. We never find out if the hair was Madeleine’s or her parents’ or her brother’s or her sister’s, even though the laboratory has the DNA profiles of each member of the family.
Let’s remember: it is totally logical to find Madeleine’s DNA in the home, but absolutely not in a car rented more than twenty days after her disappearance. (TOTL)
Why didn't the FSS give the hair found in the car boot back so they could test if it was from a dead person?
When the car was rented, I believe that Madeleine's belongings were transported to the villa, in that car. So it is very possible Pathfinder that some of her hair was there. Were any of her hairs found, or were they found to be possibly from the twins and therefore inconclusive?
Goncalo Amaral has stated in an interview that when the blanket is found the case is solved.
Then he should maybe have a word with the dog handlers since they were the last known recipients of the blanket.
It is not reasonable to find hair from a cadaver in that boot. Why haven't the tests happened?
I am sure if had been possible, then it would have been tested. I thought it had, but I do not have the tie to check right now. Post Mortem hoops is what you are referring too. pre mortem or anti mortem hoops are from a live person.
They weren't tested.
English colleagues present at the meeting raise the possibility of the hair being sent to other European laboratories which have the resources to clear up the second point for us: hair from a living or a dead person. But the FSS does not seem to want to part with the hair. (TOTL)
Do you have a cite for that Pathfinder? Sorry but I have never heard of this.
You won't find the test in the files.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/A_L_PALMER.htm
Witness deposition: Andrew Lloyd Palmer
Profession: Forensic scientist
Address: FSS
In other words you are relying on Mr Amaral's rather flawed recollection of events which may or more probably did not happen, as recorded in his book ... that the FSS did not want to part with the hair samples.
SY are supposed to be doing new forensic tests. Maybe we will all find out one day.
I think SY and the PJ will carry out any relevant tests they can ... and I fervently echo your sentiment that they find out what happened to Madeleine. I think they will.
Then you can show me in the files the actual test to see if it was hair from a living or dead person? Are you saying these tests don't exist?
The FSS has still not provided the result of the technical analysis of the hair found in the boot of the car. Once more, Stuart has to contact the laboratory. Nothing has been done. We want to know two things: if the hair is indeed Madeleine’s, and if it comes from a living or a dead person. The FSS can only answer the first question. English colleagues present at the meeting raise the possibility of the hair being sent to other European laboratories which have the resources to clear up the second point for us: hair from a living or a dead person. But the FSS does not seem to want to part with the hair. They claim that using a colour comparison test they can establish if the hair belongs to Madeleine and in a second stage, identify the DNA profile. None of that will happen. We never find out if the hair was Madeleine’s or her parents’ or her brother’s or her sister’s, even though the laboratory has the DNA profiles of each member of the family.
Let’s remember: it is totally logical to find Madeleine’s DNA in the home, but absolutely not in a car rented more than twenty days after her disappearance. (TOTL)
Why didn't the FSS give the hair found in the car boot back so they could test if it was from a dead person?
SY are supposed to be doing new forensic tests. Maybe we will all find out one day.
Your only source is amaral's book of lies.....
Can you prove accidental death is a lie ?
&%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
I can prove on the balance of probabilities Maddie did not die by falling off the sofa...which is what amaral has claimed......
Then prove it.
already have..problem is you do not understand what "prove " means......no child has ever died from falling from the height of a sofa...therefore on the balance of probabilities it didn't happen...
Amaral has claimed this as fact...when he cannot prove it...by your values he is a liar...therefore his book is a book of lies
How do you know any child has not died from a fall from a sofa, or the delayed result of a fall, onto a concrete floor ?
YOU DON'T.
amaral says sofa...nothing about delayed...experience shows it is impossible as I have proved
You haven't proved anything.
I cannot prove god does not exist...that doesn't mean he does
As I said, you have proved nothing.
and as I have said many times your opinions mean nothing...it's what SY think...and they are looking for an abductor
You better check with BHH on that.
As to SY, what have they found ?
nothing to implicate Drs McCann
They haven't investigated them.
Meanwhile not one trace of abduction.
The are numerous reasons why her DNA could have been in the car. Her belongings would have been moved in the car. The twins may have played with her toys in it.
The hairs were short fragments. Only a couple had a bit of root and those were sent for DNA testing, but there wasn't enough to obtain a result.
The FSS DID give the hairs back. There's a receipt signed by a PJ officer in the files that has been posted here umpteen times.
can you prove they have not investigated them...you post your own opinion as fact but ask everyone else to prove everything...can't you se how unbalanced your posting is
Your only source is amaral's book of lies.....
Which is precisely what you do each day on here.
From a post by Carana http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2123.msg70106#msg70106
From an interview:
Exclusive Interview with Gonçalo Amaral: Cadaver was frozen or was kept in the cold
24 July 2008
(...)
“The cadaver was frozen”
Correio da Manhã - What do you think happened to the body?
Gonçalo Amaral – Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.
How can you state that?
Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk’s right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but it’s the only way to explain what happened there.
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1466-cadaver-was-frozen-or-kept-in-the-cold-interview-with-goncalo-amaral
From another interview:
"The little girl died in that apartment" - Gonçalo Amaral on TVI, broadcast live on 28 July 2008
A: The reports from the English labs… the English reports arrive shortly before the questionings that were scheduled. And it contained certain conclusions, if they thought they were inconclusive they shouldn't have mentioned it, the question of the 15 alleles in a profile of 19 from the little girl, stating that they match Madeleine McCann, but they also say that it could have been a construction let's say from various donors, from other persons, a contamination could have produced Madeleine McCann's profile by coincidence. But there are no excuses for saying that it is not from Madeleine McCann because they held the profiles of the father, the mother, the siblings, therefore there are no doubts that at least within that family they only matched Madeleine McCann's.
Sheer and utter balderdash written by someone with absolutely no understanding of the necessity for truth and accuracy in what is meant to be a definitive book written by the chief investigator into the sensitive case of a missing child.
He demonstrates clearly that he doesn't even possess rudimentary knowledge of forensics or DNA. This is the book which was a best seller and the content actually believed by its readers.
I don't think that there is anything stranger than a man capable of such ignorance being in charge of Madeleine McCann's case.
Please provide your proof that the McCanns have not been investigated by SY.
We have been through this before.
There has been no statement from SY that they have.
However, they advertised in advance, when they were interviewing others.
So no proof
Palmer didn't do that test on the hair. Here's the report:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/A_L_PALMER.htm
We have been through this before.
There has been no statement from SY that they have.
However, they advertised in advance, when they were interviewing others.
Thanks, I've read the report.
But what specific test didn't he do that could have been done?
AFAIK, there are two types of hair analysis: microscopic and DNA.
He's a top forensic specialist. How does anyone think he worked out which hairs might conceivably have belonged to Madeleine? And if there were only a few that could be observed to have even a tiny amount of root worth attempting a DNA test? Holding them up to a naked light bulb... or just possibly using a microscope?
If he had examined them under a microscope and there had been suspicious signs, that he wouldn't have pointed it out in his report?
Here:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric1.htm
Your claim that the McCanns have not been investigated by SY is a serious one IMO. In missing child cases the parents/family of the child are automatically investigated in order to rule them in or out of the enquiry right at the beginning.
If you are claiming as a fact that in this case those normal and crucial procedures were ignored by SY then you need to provide evidence to back up your claim. Saying there has been no statement from SY is not evidence - as SY are under no obligation whatsoever to keep the public informed of the measures they have taken as part of this investigation.
Common sense alone dictates that SY would want to be completely satisfied that the McCanns in particular - were credible witnesses and that there was nothing in their history/backgrounds to suggest otherwise. The nature of their behaviour/demeanour after May 3rd would be available from the FLO's, the trauma specialists etc. etc. who spent a lot of time with them.
I do not believe that SY blythely took the McCanns word for it that they were not involved in their daughte'rs disappearance. That is not how professional police investigations into missing child cases work.
Common sense please Stephen.
We want to know two things: if the hair is indeed Madeleine’s, and if it comes from a living or a dead person. The FSS can only answer the first question. English colleagues present at the meeting raise the possibility of the hair being sent to other European laboratories which have the resources to clear up the second point for us: hair from a living or a dead person. (TOTL)
Pathfinder ... I think the only thing that is achieved by quoting from Mr Amarals book is proving how obtuse the man is and his total disregard for anything which didn't fit with his interpretation of events.
Police don't make you suspects until they've got evidence.
Pathfinder ... I think the only thing that is achieved by quoting from Mr Amarals book is proving how obtuse the man is and his total disregard for anything which didn't fit with his interpretation of events.
We want to know two things: if the hair is indeed Madeleine’s, and if it comes from a living or a dead person. The FSS can only answer the first question. English colleagues present at the meeting raise the possibility of the hair being sent to other European laboratories which have the resources to clear up the second point for us: hair from a living or a dead person. (TOTL)
Reconstruction: We will certainly not be going back on 3 May
Same thing happened with Tanner's police statement. It got morphed by the 10th May by Control Risks from "only saw the legs" to "her top was pink"What she saw was actually a small pink blanket on the two-year-old's upper body - see SY photo of the actual blanket.
What she saw was actually a small pink blanket on the two-year-old's upper body - see SY photo of the actual blanket.
The SY photo shows a cream colured blanket doesn't it? Besides, Jane Tanner said there was no covering or blanket over the child in all of her statements.The SY photo shows a small light pink blanket.
The SY photo shows a small light pink blanket.
This is what she saw, didn't realise it was a blanket, thought the pink was the child's top.
The SY photo shows a small light pink blanket.
This is what she saw, didn't realise it was a blanket, thought the pink was the child's top.
No, Pegasus. She said she saw the legs only. If she saw anything else she would have said. She described the man's hair down to the individual hairs, the height of his shie heels and all sorts of tiny details. I do not believe she saw any top or blanket. In fact she said she did not. And no, the SY photo did not show a light pink blanket."The top was not seen well enough, although there was thought to be another colour involved, possibly pink"
This is not a criticism of her per se but all of them for agreeing to the joint statement which differed in at least three regards from their own individual statements.
"The top was not seen well enough, although there was thought to be another colour involved, possibly pink"But she didn't see a top. She saw only the legs.And she said the child was not covered with a blanket.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
as illustrated in the picture JT did with artist here
https://youtu.be/DCewUVxDi9Y
I agree the SY photo blanket may not be pink, but IMO would look pink under the orange light.
But the SY photo pyjama top is pink.
Maybe she saw the pink top not the blanket?
But she didn't see a top. She saw only the legs.And she said the child was not covered with a blanket.The joint statement is valid and important even if it was given indirectly to PJ.
That "statement" as I said which is "quoted" in her rogatory interview (which you posted the link for) as coming from past statenents, is from the joint statement prepared by Control Risks group.(see my previous link) In all her police statements she said she only saw the legs and bottom of pyjamas, never a pink top or colour pink at the top.
She repeated the same thing on bbc Panorama.
BILTON: Describe exactly what he's carrying, what you can see.
JANE: Well I could see.. I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet, and it was quite a cold night in Portugal in May it's not actually that warm, and I'd got a big jumper on, and I can remember thinking oh that parent is not a particularly good parent, they've not wrapped them up.
****
PS I have forgotten how this conversation started so will leave it for now on the back burner till later
The joint statement is valid and important even if it was given indirectly to PJ.I wasnt questioning because it was given directly or not, just the content, which does not match with police statements of the same time (in fact the same day)
I wasnt questioning because it was given directly or not, just the content, which does not match with police statements of the same time (in fact the same day)The statements made directly to PJ on 4th and 10th May were typed as abbreviated summaries.
The statements made directly to PJ on 4th and 10th May were typed as abbreviated summaries.
They are not transcripts of everything that was said.
Another example is top gate possibly being open at 9.30pm - not in the PJ statement summaries of 4th and 10th - but is in DCCB timeline.
That won't do asIt was said that she voluntarily went to a hypnotist, or some such "professional" to open her memory ... and she rememberd more.
t
1) JTs description of man and child was in extreme detail, and translated in detail,those extra details added after would have been included if spoken of, especially when of so much importance
2) She actually said nothing was covering the child so no blanket as you seem to assume she saw and tbh Im not sure why you are assuming anything
Sounds familiar.
(http://s17.postimg.org/rjs21k84v/interviews.jpg)
things would be a lot clearer if the interviews had been audio taped...as it is I think the initial statements are a total mess
things would be a lot clearer if the interviews had been audio taped...as it is I think the initial statements are a total mess
It was said that she voluntarily went to a hypnotist, or some such "professional" to open her memory ... and she rememberd more.
I am presuming this was correct, but maybe not?
Anyone know any more about that?
The police gave her a cognitive interview.
4078 “Okay, so you think it was pink but you accept that it may not have been, the colour may have been distorted or it might have been such the power of suggestion I suppose.”
Reply “That could have been that for me because the pyjamas I really tried to, it was in the interview the next day when they really pushed me you know I think you call it cognitive interview or whatever, really pushed me to get an idea of you know more details about the person and it was then that you know sort of the description of the pyjamas was more in my head than I’d initial, it was mainly the feet as an initial thing.”
4078 “Yeah.”
Reply “But err so I don’t know, I may, that is the one I don’t know maybe that was power of suggestion but I thought I saw a pattern on the bottom.” (JT rog)
4078 “Yeah but then if that’s soon after the time.”
Reply “With, with a turn up, and the turn up I mean I can’t stress this enough, that is the bit that makes me think so much that it is the same pyjamas.”
LP appears to have done the same for the other rogs as well.
1485
'And, as I say, we work in what we call a cognitive interview basis, what that means is, you know, we try and put you back at the time that you, you know, that we are referring to, to see what you can remember, alright'' (FP rog)
Oldfield wondered where Madeleine's bed was but didn't stick his head round the door to check but instead went to look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there, what an odd thing to do
Funny people
I was commenting on Oldfield's odd behaviour having gone indoors to do a check but failing to do so, but
If the cadaver dog was correct, Madeleine was in the parents' bedroom, would also explain the verandah outside it being alerted to as well...as Grime says Pegasus, you can't wash it away,so rain or wind wouldn't alter much, would it?
Matt Oldfield first statement 4 May 2007Operate strap upwards as far as it will go, and you get closed shutter allowing no light through.Now pull strap down a little and it separates slats to reveal holes which let some light through the closed shutter. Pull strap down further and it starts to open shutter. Clever design.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PB/Matt457parents.JPG)
See my theory thread for details.
I was commenting on Oldfield's odd behaviour having gone indoors to do a check but failing to do so, butReading his interviews, Amaral's hypothesis would possibly answer lounge at that point?
If the cadaver dog was correct, Madeleine was in the parents' bedroom, would also explain the verandah outside it being alerted to as well...as Grime says Pegasus, you can't wash it away,so rain or wind wouldn't alter much, would it?
Reading his interviews, Amaral's hypothesis would possibly answer lounge at that point?
But then IMO his hypothesis offers no real rationale at all for bedroom and garden.
And that means it's both illogical and incomplete IMO.
I was commenting on Oldfield's odd behaviour having gone indoors to do a check but failing to do so, butStill conveniently forgetting that Eddie alerted to living scents as well as the scents associated with cadavars , are you ?
If the cadaver dog was correct, Madeleine was in the parents' bedroom, would also explain the verandah outside it being alerted to as well...as Grime says Pegasus, you can't wash it away,so rain or wind wouldn't alter much, would it?
Still conveniently forgetting that Eddie alerted to living scents as well as the scents associated with cadavars , are you ?
What about the death scent the dog in the Zapata case alerted to? The case the McCanns were looking to use for evidence that cadaver dogs were unreliable. Shame he later confessed and proved the dog was right 8(0(* A body can be moved from the underground cellar but the dog may still alert to the contaminated scent many years later and there were underground chambers discovered in Jersey.Eddie was trained for living and cadavar scents. Maybe this Zapata dog was solely trained for cadavar odour?
Eddie was trained for living and cadavar scents. Maybe this Zapata dog was solely trained for cadavar odour?
Your analogy does not work in this case Pfinder, because of Eddies past training looking for living people.
Soz
You are wrong so give it up Sadie. SY are using the same dogs (Tito & Muzzy) that also alert to blood like Eddie. Name some cases where Eddie has found a living missing person? Eddie and Keela are used to find evidence in possible missing people murder cases.
Tito and Muzzy handler Sally Richards said recently: “They are trained to find anything from tiny specks of blood which are hard for the human eye to see to a full-sized victim, and everything in between.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-search-april-jones-3642420#ixzz33lYYLilY
“But with missing people and murder cases, we know we’re giving people closure. You know that person or body may not have been recovered if it wasn’t for the work that the team put in. With murder cases, it’s about finding evidence that could otherwise have been missed,” said Pc Newman.
Pc Williams said: “It’s a sense of determination to get justice for the family. All of us have a quiet sense of determination. Sometimes you find yourself up to your knees in mud, you have been there for hours but what keeps you going is finding or getting closure for the family.”
As well as working on cases local to their Bridgend base, they have also been asked to go abroad. They have been involved in the most recent search for missing schoolgirl Madeleine McCann.
All four of the team went to Portugal in June last year, working with the Metropolitan Police.
But what is it that makes these springer spaniels so skilled? Partly, it’s because their olfactory glands - in their noses - are 400 times more powerful than a human’s.
Pc Newman said: “The dogs are tasked with looking for evidence which can be a minuscule piece of evidence like a blood drop which is pin-prick sized.”
That could be in a search area which is small - for example a room in a house - or miles and miles of land.
When the dogs find something of interest, they are trained to freeze.
PC Sally Richards and Tito searching for a human tooth. Part of Crime Scene and Victim Recovery Dog Unit, South Wales Police Dog Section, Waterton Cross, Bridgend.
(http://i3.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article8461172.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/tito2.jpg)
And the dogs? “They come to work to play, they have the best job a dog could have,” says Sgt Patterson.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/meet-badger-spud-muzzy-tito-8460918
Is there anything which tells us Eddie was trained to find living people? I keep asking because i can't find anything saying that.Was he not a Victim Recovery Dog? Does "victim"= dead body?
Was he not a Victim Recovery Dog? Does "victim"= dead body?
That does seem to be the euphemistic term. Otherwise, there are search and rescue dogs (for living victims).Yep it has been posted on here at least four times now in the past couple of months.
Yep it has been posted on here at least four times now in the past couple of months.
And Gunit, I have kept recovering the document especially for you.
Haven't you bothered to read it?
Or are you simply time wasting?
Eddie was initially trained as a Recovery dog. The sort that goes out after landslides and finds buried living people, but also alerts to anything related to the living body . Later he was trained as a Cadavar dog. To alert to the odours that a dead body and things associated with the dead body give out
He cannot be detrained.
Therefore he could be alerting to living odours or to the odours given out by a dead body.
It was necessary to have Forensic evidence to determine exactly what he was alerting to.
THere was NO conclusive Forensic Evidence. THerefore we cannot say what he was alerting to.
Do you follow now?
We are not talking about Tito and Miuzzy. We were talking about Eddie. Please do NOT twist the words to obfuscate.
Eddie is the dog that alerted in the Mccann case in the early days.
As you well know Eddie was trained first to alert to living persons and their scents.
Dogs cannot be detrained. Eddie will always alert to living persons and their scents. He will also alert to his newer training of finding Cadavar scents.
Anything that Eddie alerts to could be living odour or it could be the scent of death.
No forensics .. so
... We just dont know which it was ... a living scent ... a cadavar scent .... or a pork scent [cos he was trained on pork]
You cannot hang, draw and quarter the Mccanns on such non evidence. And on such propaganda.
I apologise if you have posted some evidence, but I honestly haven't seen it. Search and Rescue dogs find living people. Eddie was, as far as I can ascertain, a Victim Recovery dog. They find dead bodies.
I have trained and handle two operational specialist search dogs:
'Eddie' is a 7-year-old English Springer spaniel dog who is trained as an
Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD)......
'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
This is correct. There is no mention of "Eddie" in any official document that I have seen to date that states he was ever used to find alive people. Not in Grime's profile, not in Harrisons report, not in any NPIA document, not in any FOI request reply.Maybe it exists. The only place I read anything like it was in some internet poster's posts, someone called Poacher which IIRC lordpookies here quoted from another forum, but that is hearsay?
And some amusing gaffs.
Philomena could have been about to say anything, 'with the man who took her' 'with a new family' they were thinking all sorts at the time. Why do people jump to the conclusion that the McCann's knew where she was, that Philomena knew where she was it's ridiculous. Have you seen the photo's of the cousins and aunties crying their hearts out?
There is no evidence against the McCanns - so sceptics have resorted to poring over and dissecting every word anyone has ever said in an effort to prove the McCanns are guilty. When even 'slips of tongues' or 'hesitation' are actually promoted as 'proof' of guilt - then all that does IMO is prove what desperate and ridiculous levels some sceptics will go to. Way beyond credulity IMO.
[/b]
Police are suspicious. If you change your story between statements they want to know the reason why. If witnesses contradict each other about a visit they want to know why. They don't think it's normal.
So are you saying something happened on the visit and that's why they are contradicting each other because of the stress? Can't remembering one only wearing a towel and whether they were inside or outside and for how long?
In a situation where witnesses were word perfect, everything slotting neatly into place, everyone sticking to a script and never deviating ... that would give professional police investigators reason to be suspicious ... for the simple reason that as has been explained to you, everyone sees an incident in different ways and have different memories of it.
So are you saying something happened on the visit and that's why they are contradicting each other because of the stress? Can't remembering one only wearing a towel and whether they were inside or outside and for how long?
That is rather a biggie to forget isn't it? Must have been something very stressful if you forget that the person you went to see was wearing only a towel.
On holiday……A sundress, swimsuit, shorts and vest, or bath sheet. Which of those would have more coverage. And a towel clad person would be a normal sight around the pool, would it not? Why should it be noticeable?
I am assuming you are not a man.... ;)
Correct, but what has that got to do with a man seeing his friend(female) on holiday wearing a towel, when he has probably seen her wearing less, many times. Would he even notice?
Yes.
Really? I guess some men would have a fetish for bath towels, but is it normal for a friend to notice and wish to add to his statement?
Good god, when I think of my topless sunbathing on the beach and naked sun worshipping in the garden &%+((£
You little tease 8(>((
Really? I guess some men would have a fetish for bath towels, but is it normal for a friend to notice and wish to add to his statement?
Good god, when I think of my topless sunbathing on the beach and naked sun worshipping in the garden &%+((£
Do you answer the door like that? to your partners friends? or even to your own friends?
Really? I guess some men would have a fetish for bath towels, but is it normal for a friend to notice and wish to add to his statement?
Good god, when I think of my topless sunbathing on the beach and naked sun worshipping in the garden &%+((£
Gosh, you too.
Nice to get brown all over, is it not? Just keep a towel handy.................But, no... apparently better not to bother with a towel, it might turn someone on, or whatever.
No, Alice. I would wrap a towel around myself first.
Let me clue you in about hetero blokes, of the sceptic persuasion that is as the supporter blokes will argue black is white I am wrong and some kind of pervert or worse to boot.Sadly, when I open the door in only a towel, people run off in fright
If a woman is on a beach stark naked amongst many others who are also stark naked she will not be noticed unless there is something really noticeable about her; excessively thin, fat, very tall, very short, beautiful hair or just simply drop dead gorgeous. So the "plain Janes" will go unremarked. Knock on plain Jane's door and she answers wearing only a towel, she will be remembered for a long time. That's how it works.
Did Kate actually come into the room wearing just the towel or did she just poke her head around the door of the bathroom?
Let me clue you in about hetero blokes, of the sceptic persuasion that is as the supporter blokes will argue black is white I am wrong and some kind of pervert or worse to boot.
If a woman is on a beach stark naked amongst many others who are also stark naked she will not be noticed unless there is something really noticeable about her; excessively thin, fat, very tall, very short, beautiful hair or just simply drop dead gorgeous. So the "plain Janes" will go unremarked. Knock on plain Jane's door and she answers wearing only a towel, she will be remembered for a long time. That's how it works.
Can't say I've ever noticed that in Bridlington
Can't say I've ever noticed that in Bridlington
[/quote
I don't suppose it was seen much in PdL that May either. Too cold to go in the sea or the pool, wear all the warm clothes you brought with you at night? Brrrrrr. 8(>((
Can't say I've ever noticed that in BridlingtonROTF!
Because it wasn't expected; it's out of context.
Nah, men always want a peek if they get the opportunity, whoever it is @)(++(*so, is it the fact that David Payne didn't say in his statement that Kate was looking hot in a towel and he wished he'd got a peek that you find strange, or what?
I think it must be a generational thing. Old men like Alice are probably far more inclined to think all their Christmases had come at once at the sight of a woman in a towel than one perhaps of David Payne's age, with his own nubile young wife waiting for him back at the apartment.
He couldn't remember what Kate was wearing only all the heavenly angels dressed in white. I thought Maddy wasn't wearing white? But the first report were of her in white pyjamas. They should have asked if they were long sleeved ones 8(>((
1485 "But could you remember what Kate was wearing for example''
Reply "I can't, no.' (DP)
I hadn’t asked Kate and Gerry before this what the pyjamas were like, but it’s all sort of rha rha, you know, so I didn’t know what, what Madeleine’s pyjamas were before this. And I’d actually read in a paper that they were white, it was in the Telegraph, I think it was the day afterwards Dianne had bought a Telegraph paper and in there it was saying she was wearing plain white pyjamas.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
He couldn't remember what Kate was wearing only all the heavenly angels dressed in white. I thought Maddy wasn't wearing white? But the first report were of her in white pyjamas.
1485 "But could you remember what Kate was wearing for example''
Reply "I can't, no.'
Did any of them have white oyjamas, oe were they all sitting around in bath towels? 8(0(*
Perhaps his glasses steamed up @)(++(*
ROTFL
Going to get told off in a minute by the moral police for being so flippant in a missing child case..
You can be flippant when their story doesn't add up however which way they want to twist it. One was definitely inside the other said no way was he 8)--))
This visit is the biggest joke of the whole case.
Well, yes, if you don't see steam in your spectacles you sometimes have to let it off....I suppose, lol.
There was another part of Kate Mccanns statement (linked to above) which said David Payne had come round on Gerrys request to help her take the kids down to the play area ....but somewhere else it was said they decided not to go to the play area that early evening
David's visit was to help her to take the children to the recreation area. When David returned from the beach he was with Gerry at the tennis courts, and it was Gerry who asked him to help Kate with taking the children to the recreation area, which had been arranged but did not take place. David was at the apartment for around 30 seconds, he didn't actually enter the flat, he remained at the veranda door. According to her he then left for the tennis courts where Gerry was. The time was around 6:30-6:40PM.
?
All down to a poor script supervisor.
I think it must be a generational thing. Old men like Alice are probably far more inclined to think all their Christmases had come at once at the sight of a woman in a towel than one perhaps of David Payne's age, with his own nubile young wife waiting for him back at the apartment.
thanks Anna, that's it.
How can they bath the kids before Gerry left at 6 and then decide not to take them to the play area. Then Gerry is sending DP to help take them out at 6:30 whilst telling Fiona Kate was bathing the kids. That is not getting any of your stories straight 8(>(( This time period is a joke and will be ripped apart sooner or later.
Do you thnk the story is fake? Why would Payne lie for them? he seems a bit of a wimp at the best of times.
How can they bath the kids before Gerry left at 6 and then decide not to take them to the play area. Then Gerry is sending DP to help take them out at 6:30 whilst telling Fiona Kate was bathing the kids. That is not getting any of your stories straight 8(>(( This time period is a joke and will be ripped apart sooner or later.
I think kids bath time is being covered up for some reason. I don't believe they were bathed before 6 when Gerry left because why would he be saying to Fiona that Kate is in the apartment bathing the kids and who turns up there at that time?
Who by? I don't think Operation Grange are in the least interested.
I never noticed that...must reread his rogatory
They should be as they're spending enough money to better be interested. Don't you think they're trying to solve it?
Maybe Gerry changed his mind and, thought it would be nice for the kids to go the play area after all, or Gerry and Kate got muddled in these statements(not difficult to understand considering, how stressed they must have been).
There is no way of telling, why the statements are as we see them.
How? They decided that the children weren't going out before six. They were bathed and in their bed clothes. DP said at 6:30 they were in their pyjamas. So why would Gerry send him around to take them out when he knew they were in their pyjamas? But Fiona said that Gerry told her at tennis that Kate was bathing the kids. It doesn't add up.
Total confusion then?
And, if it was as your theory.............Why didn't they all have their stories straight?
One might think they were trying to be clever by introducing little discrepancies, bur rather over-egged the pudding in doing so..
Are you saying that men with 'nubile young wives' don't look at other women and are never unfaithful? what a sheltered life you must have led.No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that maybe some members of this forum overestimate the effect of a woman wrapped in a towel, particularly on a holiday in which David quote possibly saw a lot more of Kate's body by the pool when it wasn't wrapped in a towel.
Maybe Gerry changed his mind and, thought it would be nice for the kids to go the play area after all, or Gerry and Kate got muddled in these statements(not difficult to understand considering, how stressed they must have been).
There is no way of telling, why the statements are as we see them.
No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that maybe some members of this forum overestimate the effect of a woman wrapped in a towel, particularly on a holiday in which David quote possibly saw a lot more of Kate's body by the pool when it wasn't wrapped in a towel.
are you really a man I wonder? At the very least most men would have noticed and remembered in my opinion. Anyway; the freezing cold pool which no-one went into? During a week when Jane Tanner went running in joggers because it was so cold?
IIRC Kate went into the pool on the first day with Madeleine.
Allegedly.
I think knowing that DP was going to get his tennis gear - he simply asked him to call in on Kate to see if she needed any help with the kids or whether maybe she had changed her mind about taking them out. Didn't DP report back to Gerry that she was OK and tried to persuade him to stay longer at the courts?
Considering the enormity of what happened later that night - I'm surprised they could recall such an insignificant event - (in comparison) - with any accuracy at all.
I think knowing that DP was going to get his tennis gear - he simply asked him to call in on Kate to see if she needed any help with the kids or whether maybe she had changed her mind about taking them out. Didn't DP report back to Gerry that she was OK and tried to persuade him to stay longer at the courts?
Considering the enormity of what happened later that night - I'm surprised they could recall such an insignificant event - (in comparison) - with any accuracy at all.
It's not insignificant when it was the last time somebody from outside of the family saw Madeleine. Trying to get Gerry to stay on and play tennis or it could be for another reason because Gerry left straight away 8(>((
During the afternoon of that day the rest of the group members, including the children, were at the beach, [they] having returned at 18H30, the time at which he saw DP next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00, trying to convince the deponent to continue to play tennis, to which [entreaty] he did not accede as he had already been plying for about an hour and had to go back to to his wife. Nevertheless, RUSSELL, DAVID and MATHEW stayed to play.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Well you would think of a Mitchellesque" innocent reason for anything and everything, it's what you do...as for recall, when something tragic happens, your memory is enhanced not reduced, normally.....
So far this has been a pleasant discussion. Please don't spoil it.
Only with hindsight, but not at the actual time it happened - so they had no reason at all to remember exact conversations.
Also people seem to think that the only words they ever spoke to oneanother - are only those which are recorded in the files - when it's obvious that conversations - chatting - banter etc etc would be going on all the time when they were together as a group of friends. So even harder for them to remember exactly what was said IMO.
Well you would think of a Mitchellesque" innocent reason for anything and everything, it's what you do...as for recall, when something tragic happens, your memory is enhanced not reduced, normally.....
It depends what you mean by "normally"
I have had a few traumatic incidents in my life which turned me into something resembling a zombie and remembering very little.
In a vehicle crash several years back, on the motorway. I could remember very little when being questioned a day or so later. The latter episode is still coming back in bits(nightmares really)......So I guess... I'm not normal.
He remembered definitely being in the apartment but he struggles on why he was there. He definitely remembered the white little angels but struggled to remember what Kate was wearing and it wasn't a towel. Maybe it was her favourite pants.
As I said - those few mins spent at 5A were virtually of no importance at all at the time - so no reason for him or anyone else to make sure they carefully committed every detail to memory.
It was only much later that it became of any significance and needed to be recalled - whilst in the meantime a tragedy of monumental proportions had taken place - which would overshadow everything.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
May, 7th 2007 Jeremy Wilkins deposition
*snipped*
On Wednesday, 2nd May, I could see it was raining and the tennis lesson was postponed. It was re-scheduled for 2:30 pm. I found this out at a later date and missed the lesson. I arrived about five (5) minutes before the end and realized this fact. I saw the usual people at the tennis lesson. I then went back to my apartment.
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 found out that Jerry was a cardiologist in a Hospital. At this time his wife was putting the children to bed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps GM had a guilty conscience over leaving Kate on her own again with the 3 children, so he sent DP up to 5a instead.
Are you kidding? She only went missing a few hours later. I think he could remember back a few hours before that time @)(++(*
You talk as if nothing too serious at all had occurred later that night,.
So you don't think the enormous shock of what had happened could possibly have affected him?
When I had a call from the hospice where my husband was terminally ill - asking me to go in immediately - I have no memory at all of what I was doing on that day - (the day he died) during the time before I got that call. Shock and trauma can have that effect on people.
I think it must be a generational thing. Old men like Alice are probably far more inclined to think all their Christmases had come at once at the sight of a woman in a towel than one perhaps of David Payne's age, with his own nubile young wife waiting for him back at the apartment.
You talk as if nothing too serious at all had occurred later that night,.
So you don't think the enormous shock of what had happened could possibly have affected him?
When I had a call from the hospice where my husband was terminally ill - asking me to go in immediately - I have no memory at all of what I was doing on that day - (the day he died) during the time before I got that call. Shock and trauma can have that effect on people.
Please give it a rest. You could remember back a few hours when you saw her. Weak excuses don't wash in this game.
You sound like Tinman...
You sound like Tinman...
? If you visited a friends house today would you remember why you were there and what you were doing? What you were talking about? If any kids were present and what they were doing? If you were inside or outside? If your friend was wearing only a towel. It is not difficult. These are doctors not imbeciles.
Can't say I've ever noticed that in Bridlington
Why would she lie about something like that?
You talk as if nothing too serious at all had occurred later that night,.I am sorry to hear that you suffered such a trauma, Benice.
So you don't think the enormous shock of what had happened could possibly have affected him?
When I had a call from the hospice where my husband was terminally ill - asking me to go in immediately - I have no memory at all of what I was doing on that day - (the day he died) during the time before I got that call. Shock and trauma can have that effect on people.
Guess which book this is from? I can't believe what I'm reading.
May 3rd was an idyllic day which Madeleine spent digging sandcastles on the beach with her parents and the twins. Later, the couple were caught on CCTV feeding their children at the beachside Paraiso diner before returning to their two-bedroom holiday apartment at 5A Waterside Garden. The weary, happy children were bathed and changed before their bedtime when Kate McCann settled the twins into their cots and tucked Madeleine into her bed. As she arranged the blanket around her daughter and bent down to kiss the small snub and sunburned nose, Madeleine let out a pleased giggle.
'What are you laughing at, sweetie?' asked Kate.
'Oh, nothing, Mummy,' replied Madeleine, 'I was just thinking, today has been the nicest day of all. I've had lots and lots of fun.'
Danny Collins. Next?
are you really a man I wonder? At the very least most men would have noticed and remembered in my opinion. Anyway; the freezing cold pool which no-one went into? During a week when Jane Tanner went running in joggers because it was so cold?Are you a man then? You seem to know exactly how they would all react to any given stimulus. Amazing!
Who gave him that crap. It's like the biggest myth in this case which judges still believe.
Magistrate Penelope Hay said the mother placed her child at serious risk in a a "fit of jealous rage".
"Children can be abducted. The parents of Madeleine McCann left her asleep in a locked apartment. She has never been found," she said.
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/madeleine-mccann-case-serves-as-warning-to-qld-mum-20150820-gj4ada.html
are you really a man I wonder? At the very least most men would have noticed and remembered in my opinion. Anyway; the freezing cold pool which no-one went into? During a week when Jane Tanner went running in joggers because it was so cold?
Guess which book this is from? I can't believe what I'm reading.
May 3rd was an idyllic day which Madeleine spent digging sandcastles on the beach with her parents and the twins. Later, the couple were caught on CCTV feeding their children at the beachside Paraiso diner before returning to their two-bedroom holiday apartment at 5A Waterside Garden. The weary, happy children were bathed and changed before their bedtime when Kate McCann settled the twins into their cots and tucked Madeleine into her bed. As she arranged the blanket around her daughter and bent down to kiss the small snub and sunburned nose, Madeleine let out a pleased giggle.
'What are you laughing at, sweetie?' asked Kate.
'Oh, nothing, Mummy,' replied Madeleine, 'I was just thinking, today has been the nicest day of all. I've had lots and lots of fun.'
I am sorry to hear that you suffered such a trauma, Benice.
Your hubby must have died too young.
Do hope that you have recovered and are OK again now.
sadie x
She heard a knock on the patio door while she was in the bathroom, wrapped herself in a towel and went to see who it was..see her 6th September statement.:-
While the children were eating and looking at some books, Kate had a shower which lasted around 5 minutes. After showering, at around 6:30/6:40PM and while she was getting dry, she heard somebody knocking at the veranda door. She wrapped herself in a towel and went to see who it was. This door was closed but not locked as Gerry had left by this door. She confirmed it was David Payne, because he called out and had opened the door slightly
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
It depends what you mean by "normally"
I have had a few traumatic incidents in my life which turned me into something resembling a zombie and remembering very little.
In a vehicle crash several years back, on the motorway. I could remember very little when being questioned a day or so later. The latter episode is still coming back in bits(nightmares really)......So I guess... I'm not normal.
Are you kidding? She only went missing a few hours later. I think he could remember back a few hours when he last saw her and why he was there and remember everything about that visit.
He remembered to tell his 'nubile young wife' so not completely forgettable. If he was even there, of course. He seems to have said on another occasion that he last saw Madeleine at 5pm, not 6.30pm.Oh!
Yes, I have read Kate's statement, doesn't mean she entered the room in the towel though does it? Kate could have looked around the door. If the postman arrives when I am in the shower, I wrap a towel around myself and peer around the door. The Postie tends to look down a lot.
I have answered the door exactly as you describe.
Why are people making such a song and dance about it. Are they reading something into it rather than the totally innocent event which you and I see it to be?
Yes, I have read Kate's statement, doesn't mean she entered the room in the towel though does it? Kate could have looked around the door. If the postman arrives when I am in the shower, I wrap a towel around myself and peer around the door. The Postie tends to look down a lot.
But have you read David Payne's rogatory interview? He says different to what you think "could" have happened.That was the whole point, discrepancies, not whether she was wearing a suit, a bikini, a towel or being stark naked.
Ok, I see what you are saying.
The thing is if this bit about David Payne didn't happen and they are just concocting a story, then get the times right and what Kate was wearing etc. Don't you think?
Anyway I wouldn't go by what David Payne said about times he couldn't work out how long it would have taken him or whether he called in before he got ready for tennis or afterwards, he worked out it must have been before because otherwise he would have gone to the front door. To me I don't think he is a very good judge about how long he stayed.
Also about whether he came in or not, he said he took a couple of steps into the apartment, which may still be called standing by the door.
As to what Kate was wearing, he couldn't remember what the children were wearing either could he? All white is what he remembers.
Oh!
What occasion was that when he said that?
I cant remember reading that. In what statement?
I think there is a bit of a muddle up with that document.
Fiona Payne
Yesterday they slightly altered their routine, they went to the beach with the children and her mother Dianne. They arrived there around 15H45 and left at 18H15, and headed towards the tennis court until about 19H00. Immediately afterwards, the witness headed towards the apartment with her children, and her mother. Ten minutes later her husband David appeared. In the apartment her mother,
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post414.html#p414
Revised Translation Processos Vol I Pages 69-72 Witness Statement Date: 2007.05.04
The poor man was probably still muddled about where, what and when.
shock can do some strange things to the mind's recollection of a time that you would rather forget. And this is what very often happens after a traumatic experience.
I know it does weird things to doctors not used to traumatic experiences like deleting phone call history and getting new phones.
I know it does weird things to doctors not used to traumatic experiences like deleting phone call history and getting new phones.
Did David Payne delete his messages? I didn't know that.
No he got the new phones.
Well, could you go without a mobile phone at a time like that?
No he got the new phones.
Yeah ... all very hush hush ... I believe it was so secretive that he brought them to the police station to pass them over. Think we discussed all this not too long ago and came to the conclusion there was nothing suspicious about new phones for a variety of reasons.
What reasons ?
Was it for the modern fad of every time a new phone comes out, you must buy one ?
We do have the habit of returning to the same subject having lost the argument on all the other threads discussing it ... or is it just that posters are having difficulty with short term memory.
Try here ... I'm sure you may find enlightenment somewhere within ... and I am sure if you check even further back you will come across even more threads discussing exactly ... the same.
We do have the habit of returning to the same subject having lost the argument on all the other threads discussing it ... or is it just that posters are having difficulty with short term memory.
Deleted calls/texts and use of mobiles
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1267.0
Ok, I see what you are saying.
The thing is if this bit about David Payne didn't happen and they are just concocting a story, then get the times right and what Kate was wearing etc. Don't you think?
Anyway I wouldn't go by what David Payne said about times he couldn't work out how long it would have taken him or whether he called in before he got ready for tennis or afterwards, he worked out it must have been before because otherwise he would have gone to the front door. To me I don't think he is a very good judge about how long he stayed.
Also about whether he came in or not, he said he took a couple of steps into the apartment, which may still be called standing by the door.
As to what Kate was wearing, he couldn't remember what the children were wearing either could he? All white is what he remembers.
I'm not interested in your excuses.
Just simple logical reasons why it was done.
Then it might be a good idea for you to source information from what has gone before ... some of the posts on that thread were informative and you might have learned something.
You are really the strangest educationalist I have ever encountered ... and I have met some humdingers in my time.
What I was saying was you were wrong, at least according to David Payne, that Kate McCann just mght have peeked out the bathroom door n her towel, according to him they had a conversation in the living room (even if she said he NEVER came in) and she says after he left she got dressed..so square this upWell being open plan in parts, the lounge actually spread into the hallway and the area outside the bathroom which was between the childrens bedroom and the parents bedroom.
I've never said they with or without others concocted anything...the issue was about discrepancies....
It's the small crowd you hang out with..
Try together out more. It would help.
LOL ... you really have no idea ... but perhaps you should try to get back to the topic of the thread ... Amaral and the dogs in case you have forgotten.
Wonder why you feel duty bound to derail every thread you post on.
Well being open plan in parts, the lounge actually spread into the hallway and the area outside the bathroom which was between the childrens bedroom and the parents bedroom.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/notwtheflat.jpg
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/notwtheflat.jpg)
THe later area could well be called the lounge and if David had half a foot inside the patio door, they would have ben having a converstaion in the lounge..
Simples
Try reading the thread title. 8**8:/:
Same o!d McCann supporter retort.
Thank you ... I did.
Easy mistake to make since your posts are quite indistinguishable whatever the thread.
Well being open plan in parts, the lounge actually spread into the hallway and the area outside the bathroom which was between the childrens bedroom and the parents bedroom.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/notwtheflat.jpg
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/notwtheflat.jpg)
THe later area could well be called the lounge and if David had half a foot inside the patio door, they would have ben having a converstaion in the lounge..
Simples
Try here ... I'm sure you may find enlightenment somewhere within ... and I am sure if you check even further back you will come across even more threads discussing exactly ... the same.
We do have the habit of returning to the same subject having lost the argument on all the other threads discussing it ... or is it just that posters are having difficulty with short term memory.
Deleted calls/texts and use of mobiles
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1267.0
What?? Have you lost the plot? It's a matter of did enter the apartment versus didn't enter.......
oh never mind.......
The link is 2013. We weren't all here then you know. Also, it's about their own phones, not the new ones brought by the friend of David Payne's relatives.
Spot on ... I for one wasn't.
However you obviously failed to read further ... the last post being ... 6th June 2015. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1267.msg245474#msg245474
I have no intention of reading a whole thread. If you wish to provide a link to information about the mobiles obtained by David Payne then do so.
Not much point in anyone posting information relating to anything at all if you are unprepared and uninterested to read the thread containing it for information.
No wonder we are trapped in groundhog day ... doomed to constant repetition in one cycle after another.
Explains a lot.
Not much point in anyone posting information relating to anything at all if you are unprepared and uninterested to read the thread containing it for information.
No wonder we are trapped in groundhog day ... doomed to constant repetition in one cycle after another.
Explains a lot.
He entered a couple of steps into the apartment he said.
Do you or do you not agree that if this call in by David Payne didn't happen and they just made it all up, then they would have got their stories matching?
It's all a load of nit picking if you ask me.
Extract:
01:26:10 Reply "Yeah, I mean err it may well have been SA gave us a contact of someone that was a friend of the family in Portugal who err could get us mobile phones because Kate and Gerry you know hadn’t got any contact, you know way of contacting, their batteries were running out or something like that so SA had basically said err you know there’s, there’s these people that we know there and you know that could have been it.”
1485 "Or, because then there were two text messages sent about half past, about ten o’ clock on the Friday evening to that number.”
...
Personally, I hate mobile phones with a passion, so would some kind person help me out here?
Did mobile phone batteries last 5 days without a charge in 2007?
Did people go out on holiday for a week with their mobile phone but without packing a charger?
Didn't the PJ track the original mobiles long after this?
I would also like to avoid the mobile phone thread in favour of some simple, direct answers.
One could understand if there was a few little errors during and right after the time Little Maddie 'disappeared' but there is nothing stopping the Tapas TEAM from recalling what happened BEFORE the events.
JT recalled seeing and 'abductor' with a child but never mentioned it when Kate raised the alarm why? and why after a few months later she suddenly recalls a design on the jammies this child was wearing in the dark with only feet dangling and a man in a hurry?
Personally, I hate mobile phones with a passion, so would some kind person help me out here?
Did mobile phone batteries last 5 days without a charge in 2007?
Did people go out on holiday for a week with their mobile phone but without packing a charger?
Didn't the PJ track the original mobiles long after this?
I would also like to avoid the mobile phone thread in favour of some simple, direct answers.
Interesting you should mention a mobile phone could only hold 10 messages in 2007. The iphone was released in 2008. A 2007 phone although I can't remember was surely much more capable then only being able to hold 10 messages. I remember having a phone from 2000 that could only hold 10-15 messages. Maybe the people in question just had older phones then 2007?
The phone I had back then (and which amazingly only died a few years ago) wasn't the latest fashion item... I probably bought it back in 2004ish. It worked, nothing fancy. The email function was supposed to work, but never did, but the memory was so tiny anyway.
ETA: I had no need for anything other than the ability to make and receive calls when not available on a landline. That was it. I didn't even know how to work the SMS messaging until just before it died (I'd lost the instruction manual years before).
I clear my text messages to make room. I have never ever deleted my call history. The only reason anyone needs to do that is if they don't want anyone to see who they have been communicating with.
Rachel confirmed Matt looked into the parents bedroom when he checked. Were those shutters open and Why? This is where the hair bead/band was discovered. Eddie was interested in that location on the patio.
That it seemed to him that the shutters of the Master' bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
"poked his head, well you know kind of looked into Gerry and Kates room, just saw there was a double bed there."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
1&2 - One envelope containing one (01) elastic band made of synthetic material, used to tie hair.
1 - Page 287 (Marked: 1 & 2) An undated and unsigned hand-written note, very difficult to read but appearing to be written by a police officer from Aljezur, stating that on 4 (or 9) May around 06:00am (s)he found an 'elastica para o cabelo' (hair elastic?), abandoned/lost on the floor of (what could be) the back of the parents' bedroom.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SUNDRYS.htm
Did Kate give a statement about removing that hair bead/band before her bath on 3 May?
(http://madeleinemccann.org/tfm/images/last_photo.jpg)
How suspicious is that ... wow ... a hair band found (apparently minus hair attached so who knows whose) in an apartment where there were three females with long enough hair to use one.
What on earth sinister significance do you attach to that?
I believe she probably left that way onto the patio where Eddie was interested in. Eddie found a scent on that side so it doesn't take a genius to connect it if a witness said the shutters were open. What are they doing open at that time of night and remember that Eddie's first alert in this case was in that same bedroom. That is the quickest exit out of the apartment if you are in that room.
Wasn't Eddie all over the couch when he first came in?
Why would an abductor ignore the adjacent unlocked sliding patio door to raise a large shutter then lower it again from the outside?
We only know that door was open after Gerry's check. As he said he used a key to enter in his first statement we don't know it was open when they left for the tapas bar.
I think it is generally accepted that the patio door was left unlocked for ease of access ... we have a thread with many pejorative comments therein on just that.
However, why did the intruder not just exit the way s/he must have entered which is via the front door?
I think just one of the flaws in your theory PF is that you make everything so difficult to fit it when there is usually an easier more logical solution.
Blind faith is your flaw. The third door is both quicker for entry and exit from that room and the simplest way.
Blind faith is your flaw. The third door is both quicker for entry and exit from that room and the simplest way.
Don't know, but if you are happy to leave two doors unlocked, why bother locking the last one?
Don't know, but if you are happy to leave two doors unlocked, why bother locking the last one?
As far as the Drs McCann were concerned the front of the apartment was secure. Please do not perpetuate the misunderstanding of how the locking mechanism of the wooden door works.
One door was left unlocked for ease of access ~ that their assessment of the security of their environment was mistaken doesn't make much difference to that if entry was made using a key to gain access via the wooden door.
I don't think the front door, as it was left, could be opened without a key, but I stand to be corrected on that.
If the bedroom patio door had also been left in an unlocked state, why was that never mentioned?
P/F believes move 1 exit took place via the bedroom patio door. The door cannot be locked from the outside. Who re-locked it? More pertinently - where was the cadaver cross-contaminant on the handle? (You know if it was there that Eddie would have found it, don't you?)
Eddie searches for the location of the strongest scent. As soon as Eddie entered he picked it up according to Grime so he then searches for the source. First alert in the parents bedroom and the second behind the sofa. That bedroom door could've been unlocked when Matt checked but it doesn't mean it was still unlocked an hour later before the police arrived.
Outside of [the other] patio door: One inadequate print was recovered.
SY brought everything back to zero which means everyone is a suspect.
Correct. 8((()*/
No, No, No. Don't you realise by now that the McCanns are far far beyond suspicion.
If Matt saw those shutters open then I want to know the reason why? They shouldn't be open and when a cadaver dog was interested in that side of the balcony and alerted in that room then it needs to be further investigated.
4 (or 9) May around 06:00am (s)he found an 'elastica para o cabelo' (hair elastic?), abandoned/lost on the floor of (what could be) the back of the parents' bedroom.
Correct. 8((()*/
You disappoint me Alfie. I thought even you would recognise sarcasm when it came up and bit you on the bum @)(++(*You were being sarcastic??? REALLY???! I had no idea. 8(0(*
You disappoint me Alfie. I thought even you would recognise sarcasm before it came up and bit you on the bum @)(++(*
Eddie searches for the location of the strongest scent. As soon as Eddie entered he picked it up according to Grime so he then searches for the source. First alert in the parents bedroom and the second behind the sofa. That bedroom door could've been unlocked when Matt checked but it doesn't mean it was still unlocked an hour later before the police arrived.
Outside of [the other] patio door: One inadequate print was recovered.
SY brought everything back to zero which means everyone is a suspect.
If Matt saw those shutters open then I want to know the reason why? They shouldn't be open and when a cadaver dog was interested in that side of the balcony and alerted in that room then it needs to be further investigated.
4 (or 9) May around 06:00am (s)he found an 'elastica para o cabelo' (hair elastic?), abandoned/lost on the floor of (what could be) the back of the parents' bedroom.
Who found this hair tie elastic thing, and when?
Sadie has already made an excellent post complete with a photograph of the shutter showing what is classed as being 'open' to allow light to enter ... just in the way a venetian blind can be adjusted to allow more light or less light.
I think you are confusing that with the shutter being raised.
It is in Gerry's statement. 2 or 3 slats were left open all week.
Dinner ended at 23h00, during which every half-hour the deponent or KATE went, alternately, to the apartment to confirm that all was well with the children. On that day only the deponent and his wife entered the apartment. He is sure that they always entered through the front door, not knowing [how] to show [demonstrate] that they locked it with a key. Usually they entered the apartment, in which one of the lounge lights was lit, going to the children's bedroom door that was partially open [ajar] and limited themselves to peep inside, trying to hear if the children were crying. The outside blinds were closed with only two or three slats open, the window was closed though now he he is not totally sure if it was locked, and the curtains drawn closed. Ten minutes after dinner ended they had made their way to the apartment, going to sleep soon after.
----- In the following days they always took breakfast at home, shopping the day before, generally maintaining the daily routine described above. When the children were at creche they had tennis classes, KATE at 09h15, he an hour later, from Monday to Thursday.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Your theory has become so complex & convoluted I'm not sure you even believe it now.
The bedroom shutters can only be closed from the inside. Do you really think that Gerry put the corpse on the verandah, nipped back in through the lounge patio door and locked the bedroom patio door, neatly arranged the long curtains, nipped back out the patio door, put the corpse in the flowerbed, nipped out the garden gate to check the coast was clear, nipped back & popped the body by the wall adjoining the alley, nipped back out the gate again, hot-footed it round the corner, retrieved the corpse and made his way to Block 4 car park & beyond?
Or did Kate close the shutters, lock the door & re-arrange the curtains after opening the shutters & window in the children's room to simulate a break-in when she went to the apartment at 10pm?
All, of course, completed without leaving a trace of cadaver contaminant anywhere.
I'm not disputing what open means PF ... I'm saying that does not equate with the raised shutter you imagine ... just as the shutter at the patio door entrance was raised to allow them access and egress.
That door may have been the only one left unlocked at 8:30 for quicker access and exit from that room. There's nothing complicated in my theory. It is based on simplicity.
I think it is quite a convoluted theory with far too many hostages to fortune for it to be workable.
Was that bbc interview recorded on the 6th and shown on the 7th? Do we know.
When the PJ files were first published and issued to some Journalists in 2008, Grimes was interviewed, "off the record" by a small number of journo's including a good friend and colleague of mine who was , at the time, a sub-editor of a National Sunday newspaper.
Grimes made it very clear that he was unhappy with what he referred to as his "treatment" by authorities unknown, (although he did say they were British), who had coerced him, he says, to "play down" the significance of the dogs' findings. Grimes let it be known that Eddies and Keelas 'scentings' were irrefutable, in his mind, having worked with the dogs successfully on very many cases for the many of the Constabularies in the UK on high profile cases.
Grimes stated that he was "instructed" to ensure that in his subsequently produced report, he was to emphasise that the dog's findings were inadmissable as evidence, (which is of course, true, but he had NEVER been instructed on any other case to point this out), and that they were effectively inconsequential without further corroborative evidence.
http://jerseyabusescandal.blogspot.com/2011/08/jersey-martin-grime-was-told-to-play.html
When the PJ files were first published and issued to some Journalists in 2008, Grimes was interviewed, "off the record" by a small number of journo's including a good friend and colleague of mine who was , at the time, a sub-editor of a National Sunday newspaper.
Grimes made it very clear that he was unhappy with what he referred to as his "treatment" by authorities unknown, (although he did say they were British), who had coerced him, he says, to "play down" the significance of the dogs' findings. Grimes let it be known that Eddies and Keelas 'scentings' were irrefutable, in his mind, having worked with the dogs successfully on very many cases for the many of the Constabularies in the UK on high profile cases.
Grimes stated that he was "instructed" to ensure that in his subsequently produced report, he was to emphasise that the dog's findings were inadmissable as evidence, (which is of course, true, but he had NEVER been instructed on any other case to point this out), and that they were effectively inconsequential without further corroborative evidence.
http://jerseyabusescandal.blogspot.com/2011/08/jersey-martin-grime-was-told-to-play.html
When the PJ files were first published and issued to some Journalists in 2008, Grimes was interviewed, "off the record" by a small number of journo's including a good friend and colleague of mine who was , at the time, a sub-editor of a National Sunday newspaper.
Grimes made it very clear that he was unhappy with what he referred to as his "treatment" by authorities unknown, (although he did say they were British), who had coerced him, he says, to "play down" the significance of the dogs' findings. Grimes let it be known that Eddies and Keelas 'scentings' were irrefutable, in his mind, having worked with the dogs successfully on very many cases for the many of the Constabularies in the UK on high profile cases.
Grimes stated that he was "instructed" to ensure that in his subsequently produced report, he was to emphasise that the dog's findings were inadmissable as evidence, (which is of course, true, but he had NEVER been instructed on any other case to point this out), and that they were effectively inconsequential without further corroborative evidence.
http://jerseyabusescandal.blogspot.com/2011/08/jersey-martin-grime-was-told-to-play.html
I was looking at the statements by the Mark Warner childcare staff and found some interesting bits. The sailing trip was moved from Wednesday morning to Thursday morning by Cat Baker (I assume). No-one ever said why, and so I assumed it was the bad weather on Wednesday that was the reason. The Minis club used by Madeleine McCann was supervised by Amy Tierney who had two staff dealing with the two groups of children; Cat Baker and Emma Wilding.
According to Lyndsay Johnson a sailing trip was undertaken by the Minis which included both groups and the associated staff. Whether that includes Amy she doesn't say, but she seems to think all the Minis were eligible, but refers only to 'several children'
The informant tells us that on a date which she cannot be precise about but which was some time last week, Madeleine McCann participated in a boat trip, organised by the company's crêche. Several children participated in this outing to the sea, accompanied by the employees mentioned above and an expert in water activities, whose name she is not aware of.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LYNSAY-JAYNE.htm
Emma Wilding must have taken children from her group also, then. Or did she stay behind and care for the children who didn't go? Either way she could be expected to remember, right? Wrong!
She is not sure whether during the morning Madeleine's group had outdoor activities, mainly at the pool; she does remember that around 1230 Madelew's (sic) father went to fetch her for lunch. (KM went with Fiona actually)
When questioned, she states that on Wednesday May 2, her group and Madeleine's group went to the beach, but she is not sure if Madeleine was in the group or not,
According to Cat Baker she and Alice Stanley (sailing staff) took Madeleine and 4 or 5 others to the beach. Alice sailed with 3 children at a time in a yellow catamaran. Chris Unsworth ferried the children to the catamaran in a red amphibious boat to the open sea and Alice. After they sailed he returned them to the beach and picked up the next three. I assume, therefore that Cat stayed on the beach if there was no-one else to watch the children waiting.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CATRIONA-TREASA-B.htm
How strange that Emma Wilding didn't remember the sailing trip.
That qualifies as a witness statement? or just an uncorroborated blog entry?
This thread was started by me to cover strange things about the case but I used strange witness statements as the title at the time. And there's many strange things as 127 pages suggest 8)--))
With quite a considerable number of posts on the 127 pages having been contributed by you who can read something 'strange' into every action and every word allegedly uttered by either of Madeleine's parents.
I find such a focused partiality very strange indeed.
I agree though that there are many strange things about Madeleine's case ... which by no manner of means all emanate from one side of it or one set of individuals as you promote.
Michael Wright heard about Madeleine's disappearance quite early on;
About 23:00 that night I received a very uncomfortable [or compelling] call from my wife's mother who told me about Madeleine's disappearance.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MICHAEL_WRIGHT.htm
His wife's mother rang and told him. I assume she is the sibling of one of the Healy's. Susan Healy heard from Gerry McCann what had happened;
Susan Healy: 'Gerry called me......He… he just said "Madeleine's been abducted from her bed". Errm… And, I sort of said "No, Gerry", you know, and he… he was, sort of, at pains to emphasise how important it was because, at this time, I think they'd been looking for some time and they hadn't told us right away. They'd looked for an hour or so.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/09/maddie-case-first-interview-to-kates.html
So. did Gerry phone Anne-Marie Wright's mother before 11pm on 3rd May? If so, the call was deleted as were all his calls before 11pm. Did he call her before his own siblings? Did he call her before he called Kate's parents? I assume she was the sister of one of them as their daughters were cousins. Or did he phone Kate's mum before 11pm and she then phoned the other mother who then phoned Michael Wright? In that case they hadn't 'been looking for an hour or so' before phoning unless Madeleine's disappearance was earlier than 10pm -10.10pm.
Michael Wright heard about Madeleine's disappearance quite early on;
About 23:00 that night I received a very uncomfortable [or compelling] call from my wife's mother who told me about Madeleine's disappearance.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MICHAEL_WRIGHT.htm
His wife's mother rang and told him. I assume she is the sibling of one of the Healy's. Susan Healy heard from Gerry McCann what had happened;
Susan Healy: 'Gerry called me......He… he just said "Madeleine's been abducted from her bed". Errm… And, I sort of said "No, Gerry", you know, and he… he was, sort of, at pains to emphasise how important it was because, at this time, I think they'd been looking for some time and they hadn't told us right away. They'd looked for an hour or so.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/09/maddie-case-first-interview-to-kates.html
So. did Gerry phone Anne-Marie Wright's mother before 11pm on 3rd May? If so, the call was deleted as were all his calls before 11pm. Did he call her before his own siblings? Did he call her before he called Kate's parents? I assume she was the sister of one of them as their daughters were cousins. Or did he phone Kate's mum before 11pm and she then phoned the other mother who then phoned Michael Wright? In that case they hadn't 'been looking for an hour or so' before phoning unless Madeleine's disappearance was earlier than 10pm -10.10pm.
Probably wrong, but I thought that Nora was staying with sister Susan in Liverpool on that night
Aunt Nora, from Canada, was in Skipton and was about to return to Canada the next morning. I suggested that she go to Liverpool instead. We all thought that Madeleine was going to appear in the following hours, even while I drove Nora back to Liverpool in the early morning of Friday, 4 May. I stayed in Liverpool. I spoke to Kate by phone between 10:00 and 11:00am that morning and she confirmed that she wanted her mother, her father and Nora with her.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MICHAEL_WRIGHT.htm
Aunt Nora, from Canada, was in Skipton and was about to return to Canada the next morning. I suggested that she go to Liverpool instead. We all thought that Madeleine was going to appear in the following hours, even while I drove Nora back to Liverpool in the early morning of Friday, 4 May. I stayed in Liverpool. I spoke to Kate by phone between 10:00 and 11:00am that morning and she confirmed that she wanted her mother, her father and Nora with her.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MICHAEL_WRIGHT.htm
Kate was quite unwell during her pregnancy with the twins and many members of her family would take turns to go and help Kate and Madeleine.
I would often visit them with my mother, after my father died, and we would normally stay for a week, coinciding with visits to my son at university, Madeleine liked to come with us.
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
KM: No comment.
I have seen a reference to a call made by Gerry McCann at 22.01 on 3rd May to a Liverpool number, but I can't find anything in the official files. Can anyone help?Gerry's calls are at http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_COM/OA_com_Page_20.jpg and do not show anything from his phone to anywhere at that time.
Gerry's calls are at http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_COM/OA_com_Page_20.jpg and do not show anything from his phone to anywhere at that time.
Perhaps the details you've got are inaccurate (i.e. out on time or date). Perhaps the call was made on another phone. I'm struggling to see why Gerry would be calling anyone at that time, whether the alarm had been raised by then or not.
I was hoping you would reply Shining. It seems from the link you gave that Gerry made and received no calls between 12.24 (lunchtime) and 23.14 when he made his first call to Kate. His next call after the four to his wife was 23.40 to Dunbarton (his sister?) then he called a Leicester number at 23.52 (Janet Kennedy?), followed by another similar Leicester number at 0.05. I can see no sign of him phoning Liverpool although Kate's mum said he did about an hour or so after the disappearance.I am speaking off the top of my head here, so what I recall may be inaccurate.
Michael Wright heard about Madeleine's disappearance at around 23.00, he says, when his mother-in-law phoned. I wonder who was phoning the UK with the news before 23.00 then?
I am speaking off the top of my head here, so what I recall may be inaccurate.
I believe that Kate's book says something along the lines that she was not up to phoning parents so Gerry did it. If Gerry was using numbers from Kate it is possible he was using her phone to do so.
Kate's phone records show two calls to the same land line in Liverpool, at 00:00:07 on 4 May and then at 00:13:50.
That would be about 2 hours after the disappearance. I wouldn't expect Michael Wright (who's he) to be particularly accurate re the time lapse.
That sounds about right, after the McCanns dealt with the GNR.
Thanks, SL. Michael Wright drove Aunt Nora to Liverpool after they were informed (she was staying with them in Skipton). So when he said around 23.00 he probably meant after midnight?
I am speaking off the top of my head here, so what I recall may be inaccurate.
I believe that Kate's book says something along the lines that she was not up to phoning parents so Gerry did it. If Gerry was using numbers from Kate it is possible he was using her phone to do so.
Kate's phone records show two calls to the same land line in Liverpool, at 00:00:07 on 4 May and then at 00:13:50.
That would be about 2 hours after the disappearance. I wouldn't expect Michael Wright (who's he) to be particularly accurate re the time lapse.
That sounds about right, after the McCanns dealt with the GNR.
was there any time difference between portugal and Uk..
@)(++(*
You clearly have never been there.
I have ...on a couple of occasions...I'm rather well travelled...anyone here been to Kashmir....
Uk use BST....portugal WEST ...I think they are both the same in the summer but not sure
I bought a sweater there once.
they don't sell them...I stayed on a houseboat on lake Dal....in sept 2001....
I'm sure we're all very gratified to know that. ?{)(**
@)(++(*
You clearly have never been there.
I have seen a reference to a call made by Gerry McCann at 22.01 on 3rd May to a Liverpool number, but I can't find anything in the official files. Can anyone help?
The only reference I could find to that was on twitter and repeated on a coule forums (with a number ending in four zeros which suggests some kind of switchboard ) but that googles to nowhere. If it took place it could be anything but no idea what the source was, so a bit of a non runner,
Before 2300 it was reported by a national tabloid that the first call made by GM that night was:
No idea what that source was either, maybe the paper had access to phone records or its made up, by why name a specific person. Afaiaw it has never been repeated.
*
Between 10.00 and 10.50 pm The first call that Gerry made on the night of the crime was to Alistair Clark, a good friend from university days and a diplomat who is close to Gordon Brown. Clark made contacts at the highest level and - before Policia Judiciaria - already Sky News and the British Ambassador were being informed about the abduction. (Correio da Manhã 14, September 2007, no link but translated report here)
*
Re Michael Wright, he got his dates wrong on when he was driving/was designated a driver so I wouldnt take his statement on times as written in stone.
Yeah, well.
According to some sources supposedly "close to the investigation", Kate's first call was to Sky News, or alternatively to Tony Blair.
Neither appear to be true, but but since when has the media let the truth get in the way of a juicy story?
What does appear to be true is that a GNR first-responder officer is recorded in a statement as having said that the McCanns had already contacted Sky News.
He doesn't appear to have been conversant in English and others didn't appear to be conversant in Portuguese, bar whoever was attempting to translate that evening in the general panic, so heaven knows what got lost in terms of comprehension that night.
It was apparently Rachael (not Kate), who contacted a friend of hers who was a friend and wife of a BBC reporter (not Sky News).
Sky News had denied that Kate had contacted them - the first they'd heard of the case was apparently via a morning show on a rival channel - but it didn't stop Spanish TV from presenting this as fact way later, when they really should have known better.
I haven't the faintest idea how the rumour got legs that the first person Kate contacted was Tony Blair. I can't even find a mangled lost-in-confusion / translation suspicion to substantiate that one.
Yeah, well.
According to some sources supposedly "close to the investigation", Kate's first call was to Sky News, or alternatively to Tony Blair.
Neither appear to be true, but but since when has the media let the truth get in the way of a juicy story?
What does appear to be true is that a GNR first-responder officer is recorded in a statement as having said that the McCanns had already contacted Sky News.
He doesn't appear to have been conversant in English and others didn't appear to be conversant in Portuguese, bar whoever was attempting to translate that evening in the general panic, so heaven knows what got lost in terms of comprehension that night.
It was apparently Rachael (not Kate), who contacted a friend of hers who was a friend and wife of a BBC reporter (not Sky News).
Sky News had denied that Kate had contacted them - the first they'd heard of the case was apparently via a morning show on a rival channel - but it didn't stop Spanish TV from presenting this as fact way later, when they really should have known better.
I haven't the faintest idea how the rumour got legs that the first person Kate contacted was Tony Blair. I can't even find a mangled lost-in-confusion / translation suspicion to substantiate that one.
uk and portugal are the same at the moment...but our clocks go forward in march...do portugals...raaher relevant to this discussion
Maybe that is because they are in the same time zone and operate daylight savings.
Yes I googled it as well
You wouldn't have needed to had you been there.
It is not really the sort of thing one forgets.
was there any time difference between portugal and Uk..No. Portugal and the UK are in the same time zone. We even shift clocks forward or backward at exactly the same time.
The only reference I could find to that was on twitter and repeated on a coule forums (with a number ending in four zeros which suggests some kind of switchboard ) but that googles to nowhere. If it took place it could be anything but no idea what the source was, so a bit of a non runner,The calls Gerry made between 10 and 10:50pm are documented. There were none. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_COM/OA_com_Page_20.jpg
Before 2300 it was reported by a national tabloid that the first call made by GM that night was:
No idea what that source was either, maybe the paper had access to phone records or its made up, by why name a specific person. Afaiaw it has never been repeated.
*
Between 10.00 and 10.50 pm The first call that Gerry made on the night of the crime was to Alistair Clark, a good friend from university days and a diplomat who is close to Gordon Brown. Clark made contacts at the highest level and - before Policia Judiciaria - already Sky News and the British Ambassador were being informed about the abduction. (Correio da Manhã 14, September 2007, no link but translated report here)
*
Re Michael Wright, he got his dates wrong on when he was driving/was designated a driver so I wouldnt take his statement on times as written in stone.
The calls Gerry made between 10 and 10:50pm are documented. There were none. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_COM/OA_com_Page_20.jpg
So why did coreia da manha report he called alistair clark?Don't know. Perhaps they got it wrong?
Don't know. Perhaps they got it wrong?
Well coreeio da manha got alot of thngs wrong but just wondered why and how They named ths individual being called...at a specific time, seems rather specific not to mention a personal friend of GMs whose name would not have been in the public eyePlease feel free to explore this option.
Did they have access to a bunch of phone records that a judge had deemed not usable? The ones which t he pj wanted to use, the ones with content recorded? The very ones that the pj intercepted and whch added or confirmed their suspicions
The calls Gerry made between 10 and 10:50pm are documented. There were none. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_COM/OA_com_Page_20.jpg
I seem to remember there being mention of other people's mobiles being used at various times due to flat batteries.
Perhaps this might offer an explanation, in which case it would be necessary to examine records for all the Tapas 9 during this period.
Gone flat with all the deleting. If you want to put yourself in the frame then that's a great way to do it 8)-)))
Why? I have a standard basic mobile - which I occasionally use - I get a few texts but never text myself because it takes me too long. The other day I had a message and when I tried to access it another message appeared saying that my message box was full and could not receive any more messages. As soon as I started deleting - the phone rang and the message was delivered. I've had the phone for a couple of years and this has never happened before.
I know next to nothing about mobile phones but maybe that's why deletions took place with the McCann phones. They were simply making room?
I seem to remember there being mention of other people's mobiles being used at various times due to flat batteries.
Perhaps this might offer an explanation, in which case it would be necessary to examine records for all the Tapas 9 during this period.
It is not deleting text messages to make more space as in your example. This is deleting your phone call history that logs calls. Everyone deletes text messages but I've never deleted phone log records and I doubt any here has either. To do so is most unusual!
It is not deleting text messages to make more space as in your example. This is deleting your phone call history that logs calls. Everyone deletes text messages but I've never deleted phone log records and I doubt any here has either. To do so is most unusual!
You mean the phone records of the tapas 7 ... were not scrutinised?? ... I think you are perhaps mistaken on that.
You mean the phone records of the tapas 7 ... were not scrutinised?? ... I think you are perhaps mistaken on that.
I was thinking of scrutiny by armchair detectives. Are all these records freely available ?
It may seem unusual to someone who is used to having a mobile - but for people like me - I wouldn't know the difference. Basically - all I want my phone for is to make calls and receive calls if there's no landline to use. I have no understanding at all about anything else in the phone. It took me ages just to find out how to delete the messages - because there were no grandchildren around at the time for me to hand it to and say 'can you sort this out' - which is what I would normally do if I had prob.
It's like going in and erasing your internet browsing history before police getting hold of your pc.Unless you know the phone types of the McCanns and the operational characteristics of such, little can be gleaned from 'missing' anything on the phones.
Unless you know the phone types of the McCanns and the operational characteristics of such, little can be gleaned from 'missing' anything on the phones.
I delete my Internet history at various times for various purposes, and I haven't broken any laws. None of the deletions have anything suspicious behind them.
The records the PJ obtained do not appear, to me, to be suspicious. In brief, the Tapas 9 made limited contact before the disappearance, and lots afterwards.
I have been looking at the 74,104 records from a different point of view. The PJ found them difficult to analyse then. Andy Redwood is on record that OG has also found them difficult to analyse, particularly PAYG. I have been in touch with OG re methods of cracking this issue. To date, I have got the standard automated response and nothing more.
From memory, I sent the info to SY on 13 Dec 2015, along with a message saying that, if I got nothing beyond the autoreply within a month of that, I would then send the same info to the McCanns.
I need to check expiry date and whether I've got any comeback from SY (which I doubt very much).
Since the McCanns are prevented by law from getting their hands on the 74,000 calls, the issue then becomes whether they can leverage SY into putting a bit more effort into this aspect. And that is always assuming the McCanns think there is anything worthwhile in this.
I thought SY were supposed to be experts at this sort of thing. Perhaps they should have contracted it out to G4S or GCHQI am sure they have sufficient expertise to deal with a data source of this size. Size was problematical for the PJ in 2007, but 2007 was when things changed and cheap, off the shelf software became available that handle data pools many thousands of times bigger. Size simply is no longer an issue. My spreadsheet in Open Office laughs at 74,000 items.
I am sure they have sufficient expertise to deal with a data source of this size. Size was problematical for the PJ in 2007, but 2007 was when things changed and cheap, off the shelf software became available that handle data pools many thousands of times bigger. Size simply is no longer an issue. My spreadsheet in Open Office laughs at 74,000 items.
Then we hit a second issue. Neither the PJ nor SY were/are familiar with Luz, and that happens to be a magic ingredient.
Then we hit a third issue. The phone traffic covers Portugal, the UK, Germany, Holland, Ireland, and probably others such as Switzerland and Spain. We are not talking small or easy here, whether in PJ days or SY days.
However, the issue raised by Andy Redwood is PAYG phones, so let me give you one example from that. I am sitting on a 2011 Blue Pages guide, supposedly commercial, but with an awful lot of mobile numbers in it. One section is used for 'adults only', and I would guess most of those numbers are PAYG, but identified in my phone book.
I have passed to SY 10 land-line numbers for Luz organisations that a) no longer are in existence and b) do not turn up in a Yellow Pages check. I also passed them 10 mobile numbers that are Luz related and which do not turn up in either a Yellow Pages check or a White Pages check. I simply took these as a sample. I am sitting on more and most households in Luz are sitting on a stash equivalent to mine, and that is thousands of such stashes.
Here is some speculation on my part. The 2014 digs to the east of Luz seem to match up to Euclides Monteiro aka tractorman. If his phone was active in Luz that evening, one has to ask why. The data probably, but not certainly, answers that. The 'correct' pattern would give him the alibi of not being near 5A at the time, even if he was in Luz. The 'incorrect' pattern, should it place him in Luz, would not rule him out, but it would not prove guilt.
The PJ concluded that the phone data could not be boiled down - there had to be suspects first, which could then be analysed. SY seems unable to boil the data down. I'm confident the data can be boiled down much further. As to whether the result is useful, I clearly cannot tell.
The coin a phrase, a phone pinging in an area has no evidential reliability.
Russell O'Brien, the weakest link.The weakest link in what sense G-Unit?
4th May
he went there at around 8.45pm. When he arrived at the restaurant, nearly all the adults were present, without children, with the exception of David, Fiona and Diane. They arrived more or less 5 minutes later. So the Paynes arrived at about 8.50pm
He recalls that Matthew Oldfield left the restaurant at shortly after 9pm to check the children. After the Paynes arrived then?
At around 9.35/9.40, taking advantage of the lull [waiting pause] before being served with the first [main] course, the informant left the restaurant with Matthew to check the children. When he got there, his daughter **** was crying. He stayed in her bedroom with her. He supposes that Matthew checked his apartment. No mention of anyone offering to check the McCann apartment.
Rogatory Interview and improved memory (I thought memories faded, but this group's seem to improve with time)
I went down to the Tapas bar the adults of 5H were running late as usual, David and Fiona are always late and it is a standing joke in our group. Around 21:00hours Matt was going over to check on Grace so he said he would chase (page 6) the Payne’s up as we were all waiting to order and we were conscious that the waiting staff wanted us to place our orders.
I needed to go to the toilet so Matt and I decided we would go and check on the children. We walked together I recall that the light was fading I went straight to 5D I could hear Evie was murmuring. Still no mention of offering to check the McCann children
we walked around the side of the building and I don’t recall making any particular look at the front of the building to notice any changes in the, in the shutters. But we probably wouldn’t have bothered, you know, ‘a’ low suspicion anyway and ‘b’ we were going to go to each of the flats and just have a listen, so I don’t think we made any visual check of it first. So the intention was just to listen at the shutters?
Russell O'Brien, the weakest link.
4th May
he went there at around 8.45pm. When he arrived at the restaurant, nearly all the adults were present, without children, with the exception of David, Fiona and Diane. They arrived more or less 5 minutes later. So the Paynes arrived at about 8.50pm
He recalls that Matthew Oldfield left the restaurant at shortly after 9pm to check the children. After the Paynes arrived then?
At around 9.35/9.40, taking advantage of the lull [waiting pause] before being served with the first [main] course, the informant left the restaurant with Matthew to check the children. When he got there, his daughter **** was crying. He stayed in her bedroom with her. He supposes that Matthew checked his apartment. No mention of anyone offering to check the McCann apartment.
Rogatory Interview and improved memory (I thought memories faded, but this group's seem to improve with time)
I went down to the Tapas bar the adults of 5H were running late as usual, David and Fiona are always late and it is a standing joke in our group. Around 21:00hours Matt was going over to check on Grace so he said he would chase (page 6) the Payne’s up as we were all waiting to order and we were conscious that the waiting staff wanted us to place our orders.
I needed to go to the toilet so Matt and I decided we would go and check on the children. We walked together I recall that the light was fading I went straight to 5D I could hear Evie was murmuring. Still no mention of offering to check the McCann children
we walked around the side of the building and I don’t recall making any particular look at the front of the building to notice any changes in the, in the shutters. But we probably wouldn’t have bothered, you know, ‘a’ low suspicion anyway and ‘b’ we were going to go to each of the flats and just have a listen, so I don’t think we made any visual check of it first. So the intention was just to listen at the shutters?
So glad to see you back, Sadie.Ditto.
Do try and be accurate Gunit, please.
You state May 4th at the top. To anyone reading that it would seem that the acount you give is about what happened on May 4th, the day after Madeleine vanished.
It was actually Russells Statement that was dated May 4th. And what appears to the uniniated to have happened on May 4th actually was on May 3rd. Very misleading.
Could you please amend? Thanks.
Now the body of the statement:
You say .. No mention of anyone offering to check the McCann apartment.
Still no mention of offering to check the McCann children
and
So the intention was just to listen at the shutters?
You have been going over and over this case in fine detail for months and months now, Gunit.
Surely you knew that After checking his own apartment Matt went to Russells aopartment and upon finding that Russell had a sick child and was not walking back, he exited thru the back patio door. He then walked along the alley and up the back steps to the Mccann apartment where he let himself in via the patio door.
He went to the Mccann childrens bedroom and looked in. He saw the twins and the bottom of Madeleines bed, but Madeleine herself was (or should have been) asleep just around the corner out of sight. A most reasonable check by most peoples standards.
Why would Russell say any more? He didn't actually witness Matt in the apartment. He said what he saw and definitely knew, which was tghe correct thing to do..
And for Matt to claim that he went in * IF * he didn't would be stupid, cos the patio area was so well illuminated by the street lamp opposite and in good sight of the tapas group only about 50 metres away..
Surely you knew all this?
Seems that you want to make something out of nothing. I wonder why?
I have noticed that neither Russell nor Matthew mention Kate standing up to do a check and them offering to check the Mccann children. Neither of them mention the Paynes being late either - Matthew went to check after the Paynes arrived. Russell's declared intent was to merely do a listening check. Just pointing out how the stories developed over time Sadie.What did you mean by : "Russell O'Brien: The Weakest Link" then?
I have noticed that neither Russell nor Matthew mention Kate standing up to do a check and them offering to check the Mccann children. Neither of them mention the Paynes being late either - Matthew went to check after the Paynes arrived. Russell's declared intent was to merely do a listening check. Just pointing out how the stories developed over time Sadie.What you have to understand Gunit, is that no statements will provide every single detail. What seems important to one "witness" will not seem so to another.
What you have to understand Gunit, is that no statements will provide every single detail. What seems important to one "witness" will not seem so to another.
Also if every single detail were provided, then it would take as long to read as the time that the actions/events recorded took in actual real time.
It is not realistic to expect every detail, now is it?
I'm just surprised none of the sceptics have queried the lack of comfort breaks recorded, bearing in mind the amount of alcohol that was allegedly consumed.
How many comfort breaks would you expect between 8:30 ish and 10 while drinking wine?
I'm just surprised none of the sceptics have queried the lack of comfort breaks recorded, bearing in mind the amount of alcohol that was allegedly consumed.How very dare they NOT mention their visits to the loo? Does that invalidate the statements?
How very dare they NOT mention their visits to the loo? Does that invalidate the statements?
Come on Gunit / Slarti, please be realistic. Never will every detail be remembered and recorded.
How very dare they NOT mention their visits to the loo? Does that invalidate the statements?
Come on Gunit / Slarti, please be realistic. Never will every detail be remembered and recorded.
Can you remember where the WCs were situated in the bar, Sadie? I only ask because of Rasta Man being seen in there by Jez, yet not one of the waiters/kitchen staff on duty that night who were asked by the PJ reported seeing him.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
How very dare they NOT mention their visits to the loo? Does that invalidate the statements?
Come on Gunit / Slarti, please be realistic. Never will every detail be remembered and recorded.
Kate McCann
"My consolation is that on the cover he calls her Maddie, the name that the media have invented. We never called her anything like that."
Expresso interview, Kate talks about 'The Truth of the Lie' by Gonçalo Amaral, published 06 September 2008
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id169.html
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_p305OiLZRCU/SMQlxlZE-4I/AAAAAAAABCI/Es7fevpvrZo/s1600/anyone%2Bfancy%2Bbabysitting.bmp)
http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/expressos-webpage-maddie-is-invention.html
What a fuss about this Maddy, Maddie or Madeleine business. Madeleine as the McCann's said liked to be called Madeleine, this doesn't mean she wasn't also called Maddy or what ever. Madeleine was three years old when she was saying this 'Madeleine with three e's' obviously learning to spell her name and wanting to be called Madeleine. It could have been something that they made a conscious act of calling her after she said this.
What difference does it make anyway? Does this have any bearing in the disappearance of Madeleine, or are some going to say it was a Madeleine that disappeared not a Maddy?????
"My consolation is that on the cover he calls her Maddie, the name that the media have invented. We never called her anything like that."
Russell O'Brien (Tapas 7)What is causing you to roll about the floor with mirth here?
'Kate returned through the reception area standing at the end of the path near the stones, and yelled over towards our table in the Tapas bar I cannot recall exactly what she yelled but it was along the lines of Maddy is missing. We all got up immediately except Dianne who remained at the table.'
Excerpt from rogatory interview, 10 April 2010 *&*%£
What is causing you to roll about the floor with mirth here?
Is this to be whatever it is? Madeleine or Maddy. I bet The McCanns wouldn't half have bumped her off for the sake of a name.
She shouldn't lie about it and say that name was invented by the media then should she? Not very reliable in my book.
So that makes her guilty?
I have a Si and a Ju and a Dom, none of my choosing. I always call them by their right names. But Madeleine isn't all that difficult when compacted.
Julian could be more difficult.
The problem is, the world doesn't care if she was known as Maddie or Madeleine, it doesn't matter. So why say it does when there are multiple examples of both?Perhaps then you could supply some of the many verbatim quotes of the McCanns referring to her as Maddie?
Perhaps then you could supply some of the many verbatim quotes of the McCanns referring to her as Maddie?
The problem is, the world doesn't care if she was known as Maddie or Madeleine, it doesn't matter. So why say it does when there are multiple examples of both?
It was because if someone sighted her and called Maddy Kate was worried that Madeleine wouldn't react to the name and so she said that Madeleine wanted to be called Madeleine so that if anyone saw her to call her Madeleine in case Maddy got no reaction from her.
Russell O'Brien (Tapas 7)
'Kate returned through the reception area standing at the end of the path near the stones, and yelled over towards our table in the Tapas bar I cannot recall exactly what she yelled but it was along the lines of Maddy is missing. We all got up immediately except Dianne who remained at the table.'
Excerpt from rogatory interview, 10 April 2010 *&*%£
It was because if someone sighted her and called Maddy Kate was worried that Madeleine wouldn't react to the name and so she said that Madeleine wanted to be called Madeleine so that if anyone saw her to call her Madeleine in case Maddy got no reaction from her.
Then again.........
She adds that it was usual for Madeleine to be called "Maddy", as this is how she [Madeleine] presented herself to the witness;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
The child was three years old, she knew other people shortened her name to Maddy and that is what others called her, she liked to be called Madeleine as she said with three e's, this was a child trying to show a bit of character to her parents, who after that probably did call her Madeleine.
Kate was being on the safe side saying to call her both as she was worried she may not answer to Maddy, maybe she had not been answering to it at home and that is why they started to call her Madeleine who knows.
So the name 'Maddie' pre-dated any 'media invention' then? Both grandparents used it, as did aunties, uncles, the child's father and the child herself. On the night she disappeared the child was described as 'Maddie' (or similar) to the nannies at the night creche. I wonder who Kate meant by the 'we' who never used it then.
Is there a link to the full video of the Expresso interview, rather than just the trancript on Morais' site? I find the alleged remark by Kate quite odd in its context.
"Madeleine called herself 'Madeleine', and that was very much the name in the family as well, so that makes us wonder if this was indeed Madeleine," said Clarence Mitchell to the BBC in August 2008, in relation to another false 'sighting'.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id169.html
Again- a link to the actual video of the interview rather than a quote from a biased site, please.
Why ask me? Try google if you want to see a video.
So the name 'Maddie' pre-dated any 'media invention' then? Both grandparents used it, as did aunties, uncles, the child's father and the child herself. On the night she disappeared the child was described as 'Maddie' (or similar) to the nannies at the night creche. I wonder who Kate meant by the 'we' who never used it then.
I would think Kate knew what name Madeleine preferred to be addressed by.
What sinister reason would you think there was for them to make this up?
Did you read the story in the news where parents were going to change their child's name to 'Popcorn?' ridiculous I know I hope they don't, but apparently it was his nick name and he decided he wouldn't answer to his real name only Popcorn.
Children can be like this, adamant about what they want to be called, some hate their name being shortened some don't.
What did she call Sean? Ok I will let you know the answer SEANY like MADDY.
"For the rest of that day I would hear Seany wandering around the house." (p.270).
"Seany arrived in the early hours of the morning and positioned himself towards the middle of our bed, with me and Gerry then squeezed together on one side." (p.277).
9 May
"Seany is a big soft 'Mummy's boy' which is nice." (p.304).
The twins called her Maddy (watched their documentary in the home - that's Maddys!). When you find one lie you may find many more and liars don't like answering questions under pressure because they have to remember all their lies.
John McCann (Gerry's brother)
"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?'"
Sydney Morning Herald, 15 May 2007
The twins called her Maddy (watched their documentary in the home - that's Maddys!). When you find one lie you may find many more and liars don't like answering questions under pressure because they have to remember all their lies.
John McCann (Gerry's brother)
"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?'"
Sydney Morning Herald, 15 May 2007
How practical, unlike those sentimental people who refuse to throw their loved one's stuff away for years after a bereavement. I think Amelie wore Maddie's sandals too.
How practical, unlike those sentimental people who refuse to throw their loved one's stuff away for years after a bereavement. I think Amelie wore Maddie's sandals too.
I guess if they can all share a toothbrush, sharing clothing is easy-peasy
The twins were two years old, perhaps they couldn't say Madeleine, are you going to keep this stupid argument going?
We will see how stupid lies are at the end of this case.
How do you know that? Madeleine was almost four, Amelie two, I doubt if Madeleine's sandals would have fitted her. Anyway it's different with shoes, you shouldn't pass shoes down.
Her scottish grandmother said it. Apparently Amelie took over Madeleine's wardrobe;
Mrs. McCann rubbished claims that DNA evidence found in a car hired by Madeleine's parents after she had disappeared proved that the four-year-old's body had been in the car.
"The thing is that little Amelie is wearing Madeleine's sandals and she is in and out of the car. Cuddly toys are in it. Madeleine's toys are in it. Madeleine's tops are in it that Amelie is wearing.
Derry Journal
By Staff reporter
Published Date: 14 September 2007
Last Updated: 13 September 2007 6:13 PM
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id109.html
How practical, unlike those sentimental people who refuse to throw their loved one's stuff away for years after a bereavement. I think Amelie wore Maddie's sandals too.How is allowing your younger daughter to wear the clothes of your older, missing daughter an example of a lack of sentimentality?
Madeleine McCann's Bedroom Remains The Same Six Years After DisappearanceI've seen no end of mockery directed online at Kate McCann for this - I guess she's either too unsentimental or too overly sentimental for most "sceptics" (delete as applicable).
Parentdish UK | By Keith Kendrick
Posted: 14/08/2014 16:49 BST Updated: 22/05/2015 10:12 BST
**Snip
It is nearly six years since Madeleine McCann went missing, but in that time one thing hasn't changed – the little girl's bedroom.
Her mum Kate revealed her daughter's bedroom has remained untouched since Maddie disappeared and that she seeks comfort by spending time in the room.
Kate said: "I do have the key to our local church, but I don't always need to go there. Sometimes I can go into Madeleine's room and I don't even have to talk - I can just think.
"It's as it was really - that's her room. Sometimes people ask me if there will ever come a time when I change that room and it's difficult because in your head that indicates moving on and I'm not there."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/14/madeleine-mccann-s-bedroom-remains-the-same-six-years-after-disappearance_n_7367074.html
the preoccupation with such trivial matters is a symptom of the complete lack of real evidence against the mccannsYes, you're absolutely right. This whole thread is testimony to that. In fact one may as well just accept that every single word ever uttered by the McCanns and their friends is "strange" and have done with it, because that's certainly how it seems to be viewed by some "sceptics". Perhaps we should have a new, much shorter thread entitled "Perfectly normal behaviour by the McCanns and their friends".
How is allowing your younger daughter to wear the clothes of your older, missing daughter an example of a lack of sentimentality?
Perhaps sentimentality was the wrong word. Kate McCann didn't mind putting Madeleine's clothes and shoes on her other daughter almost immediately, but kept Madeleine's bedroom as a shrine later. That seems contradictory. Perhaps the children shared their clothes before? But if so, why did Amelie say 'Maddie's jammies'?Yeah, you're right - major red flag I reckon.
Yes, you're absolutely right. This whole thread is testimony to that. In fact one may as well just accept that every single word ever uttered by the McCanns and their friends is "strange" and have done with it, because that's certainly how it seems to be viewed by some "sceptics". Perhaps we should have a new, much shorter thread entitled "Perfectly normal behaviour by the McCanns and their friends".
Isn't it just that though, strangely abnormal?
Yeah, you're right - major red flag I reckon.
I can only assume you haven't experienced a tragic event where everything belonging to the missing person becomes precious just because it was theirs.
do you have any evidence re what is normal
Watched that short clip recently of Gerry laughing his head off just days after Maddie disappeared?
Isn't it just that though, strangely abnormal?Err...what?
An indifference towards investigators from day 1.
A refusal to answer the simplest of questions whilst an arguido.
A refusal to partake in a reconstruction ever.
The need to write a book setting the record straight.
I can only assume you haven't experienced a tragic event where everything belonging to the missing person becomes precious just because it was theirs.Are you trying to pull the superiority card on me again?? Assume whatever you like, you know what that means don't you...? If the McCanns had bundled up all of Madeleine's possessions and put them in the bin the day after her disappearance THAT would have been strange. Letting their other kids use or wear her possessions does not mean that they cease to exist and may even have brought some comfort to the parents, who knows?
Watched that short clip recently of Gerry laughing his head off just days after Maddie disappeared?Is there anything at all normal about the McCanns in your view, or are they just the most freakish weirdos you've ever come across? Just curious...
Is there anything at all normal about the McCanns in your view, or are they just the most freakish weirdos you've ever come across? Just curious...
Is there anything at all normal about the McCanns in your view, or are they just the most freakish weirdos you've ever come across? Just curious...
perhaps its because the mccanns are intellectually and socially so far removed from some that some find their actions strange...I certainly don't
Ad hom.
Are you trying to pull the superiority card on me again?? Assume whatever you like, you know what that means don't you...? If the McCanns had bundled up all of Madeleine's possessions and put them in the bin the day after her disappearance THAT would have been strange. Letting their other kids use or wear her possessions does not mean that they cease to exist and may even have brought some comfort to the parents, who knows?
Watched that short clip recently of Gerry laughing his head off just days after Maddie disappeared?
I expect there is something lower than using doctored you-tube clips to mock and deride grief-stricken parents.
But not much ....
perhaps its because the mccanns are intellectually and socially so far removed from some that some find their actions strange...I certainly don't
It wasn't doctored.
Her scottish grandmother said it. Apparently Amelie took over Madeleine's wardrobe;
Mrs. McCann rubbished claims that DNA evidence found in a car hired by Madeleine's parents after she had disappeared proved that the four-year-old's body had been in the car.
"The thing is that little Amelie is wearing Madeleine's sandals and she is in and out of the car. Cuddly toys are in it. Madeleine's toys are in it. Madeleine's tops are in it that Amelie is wearing.
Derry Journal
By Staff reporter
Published Date: 14 September 2007
Last Updated: 13 September 2007 6:13 PM
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id109.html
It would seem that they didn't expect Madeleine to need her clothes or toys again.
That is such a nasty comment to make. So is that why they have searching for Madeleine for the past nine years?
By toys do you mean the cheap magazine they tore the covers off, the magazine bought from the supermarket so that the kids would have something to amuse themselves with when they weren't busy doing things outdoors? They are worth hardly anything, would not have Madeleine's scent on it and would probably have been thrown in the bin the day they were leaving.
Though some would think it was a prized possession to frame and hang on the wall by the way they go on about it.
So Amelie liked Madeleine's sandals big deal, do you have children? I only ask I you seem devoid of their little ways. In my experience siblings love what the other has, if mine had a chance when they were two to get their hands on anything belonging to their older sibling they would. They would sometimes wait until the sibling was out of the room or in nursery and put on their shoes, coat, what ever or get one of their toys. Amelie was obviously missing Madeleine, Kate let her wear Madeleine's sandals doesn't mean they were passed down to her, does it.
I agree Lace.
Also IMO Kate was desperately hoping and praying that Madeleine may be returned at any time. So to have packed all her clothes and belongings away as if she didn't exist any more would have felt almost like a resignation/acceptance of the fact that she would not be returning - and that thought was too much for her to bear. It was just one way of coping with the situation imo.
They didn't pack them away. Tabloid report, so a handful of salt needed, but a normal reaction imo;IMO those were probably the barbie ones with longsleeves G-Unit see KM book page 73
when they moved to an apartment near to the one from which Madeleine was abducted, they unpacked their missing daughter's clothes, too, laying out her pyjamas on what would have been her bed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1552763/Were-not-going-back-without-Madeleine.html 27/05/2007
Were those the ones that ended up on Amelie?
Sydney Morning Herald May 15th 2007
"That was terrible for them," says John McCann, Mr McCann's elder brother, who has also travelled to Portugal to help search for his niece.
"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies.
The last time the mccanns physically 'searched' was the morning after Madeleine disappeared.
Since then an assortment of private detectives 'searched' and came up with nothing at all.
They didn't pack them away. Tabloid report, so a handful of salt needed, but a normal reaction imo;
when they moved to an apartment near to the one from which Madeleine was abducted, they unpacked their missing daughter's clothes, too, laying out her pyjamas on what would have been her bed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1552763/Were-not-going-back-without-Madeleine.html 27/05/2007
Were those the ones that ended up on Amelie?
Sydney Morning Herald May 15th 2007
"That was terrible for them," says John McCann, Mr McCann's elder brother, who has also travelled to Portugal to help search for his niece.
"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies.
Listen to the man who doesn't understand what parents go through when their child goes missing, he thinks they are fit and up to searching the whole of Portugal. Ignorance is bliss.
By searching, I mean they manned telephones to deal with sightings, as they didn't know where she was.
Snip
By searching, I mean they manned telephones to deal with sightings, as they didn't know where she was.
The very perceptible 'ignorance is bliss' is by those who type the 'poor me mccann act' on a daily basis.
Madeleine was searched for by many people for many weeks after her disappearance, with the notable exception of the parents, who were jaunting here and there, but not searching.
If they knew where she was, they wouldn't need to search...?
The very perceptible 'ignorance is bliss' is by those who type the 'poor me mccann act' on a daily basis.
Madeleine was searched for by many people for many weeks after her disappearance, with the notable exception of the parents, who were jaunting here and there, but not searching.
The parents were in no state to search, and no one would expect it of them. You speak as someone who has never gone through the trauma of losing a child like they did, so stop demanding what they should or shouldn't have done.
No one is typing the 'poor me McCann act' it is plain for all human beings to see that the McCann's were not fit to go out searching, they went with the Police to give their statements, didn't see the police or hear the police say they should have been searching, never heard Amaral say it. Only people with malicious thoughts.
They did briefly the following morning , and that was that.
Your propaganda doesn't wash, unlike the pajamas.
They were meeting with the police.
Please don't try and make out you know the Police proceedings when dealing with a case of a missing child Stephen, you don't.
So they met the police every day did they ?
You can cite that of course ?
and what did they do with the rest of their time ?
They did briefly the following morning , and that was that.
Your propaganda doesn't wash, unlike the pajamas.
As you seem to have no understanding at all of any of the reasons why the McCanns did not physically search after the first morning (the press invasion for instance) - I dread to think what your opinion is of Sandy Davidsons mother and April Jones parents who didn't search either. In fact Mrs Davidson freely admitted that she couldn't bring herself to search because she was so scared of what she might find. You must be truly appalled by such selfish people.
Awaits the usual sidestepping reply.
As you seem to have no understanding at all of any of the reasons why the McCanns did not physically search after the first morning (the press invasion for instance) - I dread to think what your opinion is of Sandy Davidsons mother and April Jones parents who didn't search either. In fact Mrs Davidson freely admitted that she couldn't bring herself to search because she was so scared of what she might find. You must be truly appalled by such selfish people.
Awaits the usual sidestepping reply.
Ah yes, the press 'intrusion'.
Which they used to their own ends.
If it was a child of mine missing, I would be looking.
END OF.
And how much searching do you think you would get done with scores of news hungry reporters mobbing/surrounding/jostling you, shouting questions at you, clicking cameras and shoving microphones in your face?
Do you really think that you would be able to search? And of course you couldn't speak to any Portuguese locals because you don't speak the language - and even if you did - you would then be breaking the secrecy laws.
Would you still ignore the advice of the police in these circumstances - which is..... Stay at Home?
Do you mean like this shot?
(http://i29.servimg.com/u/f29/15/39/31/41/shoppi10.jpg)
They only went out to search when everyone in the main search had gone home to bed. And that's a FACT!
Ah yes, the press 'intrusion'.
Which they used to their own ends.
If it was a child of mine missing, I would be looking.
END OF.
They went searching for an hour when it GOT LIGHT.
Thanks for that pertinent reminder Pathfinder, with the the mccanns doing on of their photo-shoots, cuddlecat in hand, and searching like there's no tomorrow.
I told you to read witness statements not fantasy books.
1485
'Can you remember what sort of time that was roughly''
Reply
Fiona Payne: 'Erm it was still very cold and, and dark, erm I think it was you know, between five and six, I say.
Nothing with that photo, no explanation as to where they were or what they were doing, just used as Propaganda.
You see Stephen not everyone is taken in by your continual need to portray the McCann's as nasty selfish people who were just out to raise money and live like stars [in your opinion] that they didn't care that Madeleine was missing in fact look they are smiling so they are GLAD.
Hey who do you think your talking to, less of the 'I told you' if you don't mind.Additionally,
It was roughly six o'clock when they went out searching for an hour, as a matter of fact they were seen by one of the Police Officers about 7ish.
That reply won't fool anyone.What nonsense.
Their faces tell it all.
That reply won't fool anyone.
Their faces tell it all.
What nonsense.
As you know i lost my son, as a nine year old, to a brain tumour.
Funny things happen to you in extreme circumstances. Of course I smiled at times, but it must have been a strained sort of smile like poor Kates.
Sometimes I wonder about you, stephen..
Stephen seems to be void of empathy Sadie.
He seems to think that parents of missing children should never smile, never laugh. Kerry Needham mentioned similar in her book she laughed on a bus at a joke and someone told her she shouldn't laugh when her son is missing.
It doesn't mean that Kerry wasn't thinking of Ben it was just that it's the bodies reaction, it [as it is stated in a book for parents of missing children], a release of tension, and is as good as having a good cry.
Stephen wouldn't understand such things, he just sees what he sees. The sad thing is, in a couple of days when this debate has finished and another one started, he will repeat the same thing again, over and over.
Hey who do you think your talking to, less of the 'I told you' if you don't mind.
It was roughly six o'clock when they went out searching for an hour, as a matter of fact they were seen by one of the Police Officers about 7ish.
Additionally,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
-snip-
After 22:00 R. R. S. B. and his wife were still sitting on the veranda in the B. family apartment. They heard noises downstairs and afterwards found out that a child had disappeared. Gerald was seen and spoken to by N.B. and R.R.S.B. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on N.B.'s balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search.
-snip-
So according to PJ Files, Gerry was searching at about 10pm. Neil and Raj are witnesses to that.
I am also sure that I have seen a report, which I can no longer find, that Fiona relieved Kate during the evening of the 3rd and Kate searched along the road towards Baptista Super Market.
So contrary to all your assertions both Kate and Gerry did search and seemingly at least twice. Gerrys search was probably prolonged, but he had other things to do as well..
This PJ timeline also puts the cap on PFinders constant carping and insinuations about Gerry being Smithman carrying Madeleine away
You don't know what you're talking about. I've provided a witness statement at what time they left in the DARK and they were out for a long time all alone until they were spotted at around 7am.Why dont you reseach things better PFinder and get things right
Additionally,There is nothing the statements of Neil Berry or Raj Balu to indicate they saw Gerry that night. There seem to be missing statements. for the pair.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
-snip-
After 22:00 R. R. S. B. and his wife were still sitting on the veranda in the B. family apartment. They heard noises downstairs and afterwards found out that a child had disappeared. Gerald was seen and spoken to by N.B. and R.R.S.B. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on N.B.'s balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search.
-snip-
So according to PJ Files, Gerry was searching at about 10pm. Neil and Raj are witnesses to that.
I am also sure that I have seen a report, which I can no longer find, that Fiona relieved Kate during the evening of the 3rd and Kate searched along the road towards Baptista Super Market.
So contrary to all your assertions both Kate and Gerry did search and seemingly at least twice. Gerrys search was probably prolonged, but he had other things to do as well..
...
There is nothing the statements of Neil Berry or Raj Balu to indicate they saw Gerry that night. There seem to be missing statements. for the pair.Yep, three very important statements that prove Gerry was searching at 10pm and after have all gone missing. Cant remember the other one.
However, if someone can take missing statements, no mention of Gerry in the ones we've got, and turn that into both saw and talked to Gerry, a source would be needed.
Yep, three very important statements that prove Gerry was searching at 10pm and after have all gone missing. Cant remember the other one.
How strange that the statements that proved Gerry was searching have all gone.
Additionally,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
-snip-
After 22:00 R. R. S. B. and his wife were still sitting on the veranda in the B. family apartment. They heard noises downstairs and afterwards found out that a child had disappeared. Gerald was seen and spoken to by N.B. and R.R.S.B. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on N.B.'s balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search.
-snip-
So according to PJ Files, Gerry was searching at about 10pm. Neil and Raj are witnesses to that.
I am also sure that I have seen a report, which I can no longer find, that Fiona relieved Kate during the evening of the 3rd and Kate searched along the road towards Baptista Super Market.
So contrary to all your assertions both Kate and Gerry did search and seemingly at least twice. Gerrys search was probably prolonged, but he had other things to do as well..
This PJ timeline also puts the cap on PFinders constant carping and insinuations about Gerry being Smithman carrying Madeleine away
Please refrain from innuendo about other posters.Please clarify - is innuendo about the McCanns permitted?
I've heard that one before.Neil Berry formal interview Apr 2008. "From 22.00 onwards all the events that took place were already described in my previous statement of 7th May 2007 and i cannot add any further information, other than that which was already added."
How do we know they ever existed ?
I've heard that one before.Raj Balu in his statement of May 2008. "I did not ask to see my original statements in order to refresh my memory. I confirm that these statements are correct."
How do we know they ever existed ?
Please clarify - is innuendo about the McCanns permitted?
Raj Balu in his statement of May 2008. "I did not ask to see my original statements in order to refresh my memory. I confirm that these statements are correct."
This struck me as a bit weird, so I checked the Portuguese and the translation from Portuguese to English is good. I have no way of telling if the original translation from English to Portuguese was equally good.
He appears to be saying - more than one previous statement - which he has not seen this time around - but he confirms they are accurate. Whether that means the LP had hands on them or not, in English or not, is not something I can prove.
Raj Balu, May 2008, goes on to say. "After 22:00 we were still sitting on the veranda in the Berry apartment. We heard noises downstairs and afterwards found out that a child had disappeared. My testimony dated 6th of May 2007 related the details of the conversation we overheard and the information regarding the paper that Neil and I used in the searches."
So now there is a date for one of these statements - 6 May 2007. That's a fairly good memory re the date unless he's seen the date somewhere. He mentions nothing of meeting or talking to Gerry that evening, though a reliance is placed on previous statements being accurate, with nothing to add this time.
There's lots of reasons why material did not enter the PJ chain, and why chunks were not published when the files were released. There may or may not be something strange in this instance.
Again, I can't fathom how we work out the content of these missing statements, given that we can't read them.
are the McCann's "other posters"? if not, my request was not about them.I know that silly - my question was concerning innuendo, not other posters. Is innuendo about the McCanns OK, please clarify.
I know that silly - my question was concerning innuendo, not other posters. Is innuendo about the McCanns OK, please clarify.
You really must keep up with Pathfinder's post, Alfred.I thought so, but wanted to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.
He says practically nothing but, the|McCannsdunit and has zero sinbin points.
There's your answer ....
I thought so, but wanted to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.
You really must keep up with Pathfinder's post, Alfred.
He says practically nothing but, the|McCannsdunit and has zero sinbin points.
There's your answer ....
I provide evidence and ask questions you don't like. Parents who refuse to answer police questions and change stories don't deserve my trust.
There is a distinct difference between making innuendo without any supporting facts which may be libellous and pointing out referenced discrepancies in witnesses stories.
The first is not allowed, the second is.
Clear enough silly.
There is a distinct difference between making innuendo without any supporting facts which may be libellous and pointing out referenced discrepancies in witnesses stories.As mud, thanks.
The first is not allowed, the second is.
Clear enough silly.
I provide evidence and ask questions you don't like. Parents who refuse to answer police questions and change stories don't deserve my trust.
There is a distinct difference between making innuendo without any supporting facts which may be libellous and pointing out referenced discrepancies in witnesses stories.
The first is not allowed, the second is.
Clear enough silly.
the mistake pathfinder and others make is to treat the non verbatim twice translated "stories" as accurate
The statements may be accurate or inaccurate, but clearly they were read back and signed by those making them. If a translation from the Portuguese is unclear the original text can usually be seen, translated, and the meaning extracted. They are all there is though, so what are those who dismiss the statements basing their opinions on instead?
they would have been read back in English.....that does not mean what was written down in Portuguese matched....an absolute recipe for disaster...we do not know what the mccanns said...only someone elses version of it
So, answer my question. On which facts do you base your opinions?
on the general facts but you cannot be sure of the details...
A fact is known or proved to be true. Which facts are you basing your opinions on?
there are plenty of facts in this case......you wont agree with my reasoning so whats the point.......the mccanns are not involved and maddie was almost certainly abducted..imo
there are plenty of facts in this case......you wont agree with my reasoning so whats the point.......the mccanns are not involved and maddie was almost certainly abducted..imo
I probably won't. but I've only heard you mention two things, both said by Redwood. Is your whole theory based on two things a retired detective said ages ago or is there more?
lots more....I have looked at the whole picture and can see no way the mccanns were involved......Redwoods statement just confirmed SY agree with me
@SLThat child was in the starfish/jellyfish kidsclub located in same set of buildings as tapas bar. The "small garden" in that statement is the grassy play area next to tapas bar.
Do you know if there is a small garden near or close to the Ocean Club main reception? Mr Carpenter's daughter was 3 years old so was probably in the other Mini club group.
SC: Hummm... I remember talking to Gerry, because I had to go and fetch I*** and they were playing in the small garden and he was (inaudible), I***** and I thought it was Maddie, I am not absolutely sure
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
Neil Berry formal interview Apr 2008. "From 22.00 onwards all the events that took place were already described in my previous statement of 7th May 2007 and i cannot add any further information, other than that which was already added."@ShiningInLuz The exact answer to what NB and RB heard from 606 balcony is given here in the report of a Brit analyst (probably Met?) working in Mr Amaral's team.
That could have been a missing formal statement, or it could have been an informal chat that never made it into the files e.g. we took part in the MW search and saw nothing.
In the Apr 2008 interview, Berry states that the McCanns were not at Tapas when he and Balu picked up their take-away. To mention that and then not mention meeting and talking to Gerry after the disappearance strikes me as highly unlikely, but as I have not seen an original testimony by Berry, I cannot prove it.
And how one can leap from a potential missing statement, one that does not appear to ever have been read, to state it shows conclusively that Gerry searched, is the point I am having difficulty in accepting.
@ShiningInLuz The exact answer to what NB and RB heard from 606 balcony is given here in the report of a Brit analyst (probably Met?) working in Mr Amaral's team.Thank you for this.
"G was seen and spoken to by NB and RB. They heard him calling for M when they were sitting on N's balcony, not far from the M's apartment. They both went down to talk to G and helped in the search."
(Outros apensos 2 file 9 p11-14)
That child was in the starfish/jellyfish kidsclub located in same set of buildings as tapas bar. The "small garden" in that statement is the grassy play area next to tapas bar.
@ShiningInLuz The exact answer to what NB and RB heard from 606 balcony is given here in the report of a Brit analyst (probably Met?) working in Mr Amaral's team.
"G was seen and spoken to by NB and RB. They heard him calling for M when they were sitting on N's balcony, not far from the M's apartment. They both went down to talk to G and helped in the search."
(Outros apensos 2 file 9 p11-14)
That is known but the time isn't and because NB & RB used a paper in their searches then MW were involved and that is 10:20pm at the earliest which is AFTER 10.It is obvious that GM was the very first searcher the people on 606 balcony noticed. If your pathfinder theory that they didnt see GM searching until after 10.20 was correct, the people on 606 balcony would have noticed other searchers first wouldn't they? You are way out on timing IMO, and by far more than minutes.
At about 22.17 I received a call from Lyndsey Johnson, the creche Manager, informing me that the girl had gone missing. I met Lyndsey and the Service Manager, Amy Tierney, near to the Tapas Bar and we initiated the 'Mark Warner procedures for the search of a missing child'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA-LOUISE.htm
It is obvious that GM was the very first searcher the people on 606 balcony noticed. If your pathfinder theory that they didnt see GM searching until after 10.20 was correct, the people on 606 balcony would have noticed other searchers first wouldn't they? You are way out on timing IMO, and by far more than minutes.
It is obvious that GM was the very first searcher the people on 606 balcony noticed. If your pathfinder theory that they didnt see GM searching until after 10.20 was correct, the people on 606 balcony would have noticed other searchers first wouldn't they? You are way out on timing IMO, and by far more than minutes.
According to GM the alarm wasn't raised until 10.13pm. (although according to nanny Jacqueline W a woman told them at the creche at 10.05pm) Then he went to the apartment and tested the shutters. Only then did the searching begin.
According to Balu it was after 10pm when they heard 'noises' downstairs. It was after that they found out that a child had disappeared. At some point they overheard a conversation, whatever that means.
Balu and Berry were in the Tapas bar at 3.30pm having a drink. They don't mention if it was alcoholic, but Balu says they stayed there until after 7pm. By 8pm they're back for their food, and have a drink while they wait. They get four bottles of red wine with the meal. I would guess they weren't 100% sober that night.
Those are Toddlers. Toddlers 1 was for kids above 1 year and below 2 years. Toddlers 2 was for those above 2 years and below 3 years. This child was a Mini, aged above 3 years and below 5 years. The Baby club was for kids above 4 months and below 1 year.There is a large garden between OC reception and block 1. You can clearly see it on Google Earth. I have seen kids playing on it several times, I have never noticed an MW or OC staff member supervising. Equally, I cannot remember any sort of play equipment there.
Was there more than one 'garden' where the children were taken to play, is what I want to know.
As part of her work she frequently takes the children for swimming, walks on the beach and to the garden [play area] next to the tennis courts.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STACY-POTZ.htm
There is a large garden between OC reception and block 1. You can clearly see it on Google Earth. I have seen kids playing on it several times, I have never noticed an MW or OC staff member supervising. Equally, I cannot remember any sort of play equipment there.
The Tapas area is just to the west. That area is walled off so entry and exit is controlled, thus more secure. And it has play equipment for the kids.
It makes more sense to use that rather than the garden south of block 1.
Would it be reasonable to assume from that attendance record that only the twins were were the only ones who attended all sessions ?
Would it be reasonable to assume from that attendance record that only the twins were were the only ones who attended all sessions ?
It is said that the Minis and the Babies were housed above the Main Reception. Each day at the end of the afternoon session the nannies brought the children to the Tapas for their high tea. The Minis, I think, were walked there holding onto the snake. According to Charlotte P there were six babies and three nannies in that upstairs room. I wonder if there was a lift in that building? It would have been a logistics nightmare otherwise just to get six babies downstairs. Then what? Double buggies to get them to the Tapas?
It is said that the Minis and the Babies were housed above the Main Reception. Each day at the end of the afternoon session the nannies brought the children to the Tapas for their high tea. The Minis, I think, were walked there holding onto the snake. According to Charlotte P there were six babies and three nannies in that upstairs room. I wonder if there was a lift in that building? It would have been a logistics nightmare otherwise just to get six babies downstairs. Then what? Double buggies to get them to the Tapas?IMO baby parents picked up babies from baby club itself.
IMO baby parents picked up babies from baby club itself.
According to Fiona's Rog;When that tourist saw about 2 babies that would be at the start when possibly only 2 had arrived so far, or at the end when maybe some had already been collected or were asleep in cots which she did not look into.
Erm, there was only kind of two babies in the baby room and about three, huh, carers, again, it was very quiet.
So there were three nannies caring for 2 babies? No wonder Charlotte P went into the Minis and read stories to MM.
I would imagine not many used it in the afternoons, and if Fiona was correct there were only 2 babies there anyway with three nannies.From outside the baby room a tourist would not see or hear those babies that were sound asleep in cots so there could have been 6
They definitely wouldn't be sober and knowing the time hence the AFTER 10 statement from them both.How your theory can have him in the 7 person rush back from restaurant to apartment, then slipping off and walking/running to north end of Rua Escola, then walking/running to the rocks south of the church, then running back north, to be the very first searcher to search below 606 balcony, is a miracle IMO.
How your theory can have him in the 7 person rush back from restaurant to apartment, then slipping off and walking/running to north end of Rua Escola, then walking/running to the rocks south of the church, then running back north, to be the very first searcher to search below 606 balcony, is a miracle IMO.
How your theory can have him in the 7 person rush back from restaurant to apartment, then slipping off and walking/running to north end of Rua Escola, then walking/running to the rocks south of the church, then running back north, to be the very first searcher to search below 606 balcony, is a miracle IMO.
Do you know who said this and wasn't seen again by the other men until much later?Yes I know who said that, and immediately after "let's just split up", he is seen from that block 6 apartment's balcony, pathfinder. He is the FIRST searcher seen/heard from that balcony www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-SEP-07.htm. If your theory was right he would be the 20th or something like that. Now here's one for you - who moved into that apartment soon after?
"‘Look, let’s just’, erm, ‘let’s just split up and find’, erm, you know, ‘see if we can find her, see if she’s just wandered out’."
I don't need to spell it out. The truth reveals itself when your on the right path.
Yes I know who said that, and immediately after "let's just split up", he is seen from that block 6 apartment's balcony, pathfinder. He is the FIRST searcher seen/heard from that balcony www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-SEP-07.htm. If your theory was right he would be the 20th or something like that. Now here's one for you - who moved into that apartment soon after?
Yes I know who said that, and immediately after "let's just split up", he is seen from that block 6 apartment's balcony, pathfinder. He is the FIRST searcher seen/heard from that balcony www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-SEP-07.htm. If your theory was right he would be the 20th or something like that. Now here's one for you - who moved into that apartment soon after?
Yes I know who said that, and immediately after "let's just split up", he is seen from that block 6 apartment's balcony, pathfinder. He is the FIRST searcher seen/heard from that balcony www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-SEP-07.htm. If your theory was right he would be the 20th or something like that. Now here's one for you - who moved into that apartment soon after?
The date should be on the camera. I think it was Tuesday morning. Rain on WED morning.
According to the Tennis booking sheets it was Tuesday morning between 10.30-11am
According to the creche sheets the Lobsters were in the Pool on Tuesday morning between 10-11am.
Another discrepancy.
"Madeleine and Ella and their sort of group came to have a tennis lesson as part of their creche activities, erm and Kate didn't have her camera and Jane was there then as well and Jane took some photos of both Madeleine and Ella, thats one, that poster of Madeleine with the tennis balls, that sort of pictures'."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
"I ran back to our apartment for my camera to record the occasion. One of my photographs is known around the world now: a smiling Madeleine clutching armfuls of tennis balls." (Madeleine by KM)
I think it's TUE morning. Raining on WED morning from interviews and weather chart.
You need to get the timeline right. RB & NB used a paper in the searches. MW weren't in that vicinity until 10:20 at the earliest when Emma Knight went to 5A and only found Kate and Fiona there. My timeline is spot on.Do you realise that GM was the first person to search the carpark south of block 6?
I assume it was the PJ.Yes as stated in the files it became the PJ/LP operations base.
Yes as stated in the files it became the PJ/LP operations base.
Presumably it was a ground floor apartment as that is what the Berrys had requested on their booking form. So, 6th apartment away from the junction with Rua Martins - overlooking where the path narrows to a short alley?601 to 605 are ground floor Misty.
601 to 605 are ground floor Misty.
606 is first floor, east end, diners were on that round balcony above that path where it narrows.
Thanks for confirming that - I couldn't decipher any numbering on the g/f apartments using the dreaded G/E.Because 606 is bigger than 603 Misty.
I wonder why they opted for a first floor apartment instead of, say, 603 which had also been vacated?
Because 606 is bigger than 603 Misty.
Do you realise that GM was the first person to search the carpark south of block 6?
After 10.15pm at the earliest then? Guests and employees weren't searching before then according to Dianne who saw no-one when she had a trot down the road at some point after staying behind at the table. Matt went to Reception at 10.10pm to ask for the Police to be called, so Gerry went after that to see if they'd done it. The receptionist, of course, mentioned neither of them.
While the guests and employees of the resort were searching, he went to the main Reception to check whether they had called the Police
Yes and I know he wasn't in the apartment when Dianne first went there about 5 minutes after the alarm. He wasn't there when Emma Knight arrived at 10:20. So he was somewhere!
Added to which 603 was booked again from 5th -12th May. Block 6 seems to have had three MW apartments; 603, 606 and 607.The blocks are all numbered the same way. As you look at them from the front, they are numbered L to R, then up a level and L to R etc.
I'm glad I wasn't going to block 6 looking for an apartment. Apparently it was numbered left to right 1-5 as you viewed it from the road in front of the car park. Having found number 5, I would expect 6 to be nearby, but it's on the other end of the block on the first floor above number 1. Above number 5 is 610, apparently.
606 Berry MW
607 Brain MW
608 Thomas Cook
610 Privately owned.
FIY a visitor to 605 left at 10pm. She saw nothing, no people, no searching;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
The first media to be informed were the BBC, by Rachael, so their information was from 'the horses mouth', so to speak;
'At around quarter-to-ten last night, her mother, Kate McCann, discovered her daughter wasn't there' BBC Radio 4 - Today Programme
0830 - 0900peak. (4th May)
That rather destroys the PJ's belief that Gerry was seated in the Tapas at 10pm.
no it doesn't
Another discrepancy.
"Madeleine and Ella and their sort of group came to have a tennis lesson as part of their creche activities, erm and Kate didn't have her camera and Jane was there then as well and Jane took some photos of both Madeleine and Ella, thats one, that poster of Madeleine with the tennis balls, that sort of pictures'."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
"I ran back to our apartment for my camera to record the occasion. One of my photographs is known around the world now: a smiling Madeleine clutching armfuls of tennis balls." (Madeleine by KM)
I think it's TUE morning. Raining on WED morning from interviews and weather chart.
Picky, to me it's innocent enough, Jane took a picture of Madeleine with tennis balls, Kate ran back for her camera and took a picture of Madeleine with tennis balls, so what?
Exactly. Rachael remembers Jane taking several photos of Madeleine and Ella and that Kate ran back for her camera and also took photos. Rachael thinks it could be Jane who took the photo of Madeleine - Kate knows it was herself - presumably because it was on her camera.
Are we supposed to be reading something sinister into this? If so what is it?
Talk about mega nitpicking.
Exactly. Rachael remembers Jane taking several photos of Madeleine and Ella and that Kate ran back for her camera and also took photos. Rachael thinks it could be Jane who took the photo of Madeleine - Kate knows it was herself - presumably because it was on her camera.
Are we supposed to be reading something sinister into this? If so what is it?
Talk about mega nitpicking.
Picky, to me it's innocent enough, Jane took a picture of Madeleine with tennis balls, Kate ran back for her camera and took a picture of Madeleine with tennis balls, so what?
Rachel said Jane's photo is known to the world not that Kate ran to get her camera.
So? Rachel got it wrong, Jane may have taken a similar photograph but it was Kate's they used.
You think so? Rachael thought it happened on Thursday morning, the one day she should have remembered what happened. Jane, Kate and Russell say Thursday was the other group when the guy was videoing. Matt and Rachael had a tennis lesson every day from 11-12 noon. Rachael usually arrived early for this, but she never mentioned the video incident just before her lesson on Thursday. Jane thought Rachael was in the daily classes at 9-9.15am with Kate and herself but she wasn't. Dianne says she was in that class, but no-one mentioned her at all.
It's not 'sinister' at all, just an example of what terrible memories some of them had.
Nothing to do with 'terrible memories' IMO - although I agree that different people do have differing levels of the power of recall and different perceptions of time and distance.
Why would anyone expect them to remember precisely how every minute of every day of that week had been spent - and not only to remember what they did and said - but what 8 other people did and said too - when they had absolutely no way of knowing what was going to happen - and so had no reason to make a concerted effort to carefully commit stuff (which was unremarkable at the time) to their memories for future reference.
Can anyone precisely recall every tiny detail of how they spent every minute of the last 5 days, including the exact time they did each and every different little thing - as they went through the days, - and remember exactly who said what to whom and when?
Taking photos was just one tiny thing amongst all the other things they did that day. The fact that they didn't all have identical memories of what happened re that - or anything else for that matter - is perfectly normal. Ask any policeman.
Nothing to do with 'terrible memories' IMO - although I agree that different people do have differing levels of the power of recall and different perceptions of time and distance.
Why would anyone expect them to remember precisely how every minute of every day of that week had been spent - and not only to remember what they did and said - but what 8 other people did and said too - when they had absolutely no way of knowing what was going to happen - and so had no reason to make a concerted effort to carefully commit stuff (which was unremarkable at the time) to their memories for future reference.
Can anyone precisely recall every tiny detail of how they spent every minute of the last 5 days, including the exact time they did each and every different little thing - as they went through the days, - and remember exactly who said what to whom and when?
Taking photos was just one tiny thing amongst all the other things they did that day. The fact that they didn't all have identical memories of what happened re that - or anything else for that matter - is perfectly normal. Ask any policeman.
If I played tennis every day with a group of 5 others I would remember who they were and who they weren't. Jane Tanner didn't. I wonder why the police took them so carefully through the whole week when the only important day was Thursday? The day Rachael couldn't remember what happened in the morning. Gerald couldn't remember that Russell's child was ill that evening or whether he locked the apartment or not or which door he used. Never mind, Op Grange accepted that they remembered the timeline OK.Never mind indeed. If you can give us any plausible or even i plausible reason why any of this might be relevant to Madelene's disappearance do feel free to share.
Never mind indeed. If you can give us any plausible or even i plausible reason why any of this might be relevant to Madelene's disappearance do feel free to share.
Never mind indeed. If you can give us any plausible or even i plausible reason why any of this might be relevant to Madelene's disappearance do feel free to share.
Most of them proved to be unreliable witnesses on a matter of subjects. More a hindrance to the investigation than a help.
Both the PJ and SY seem to have accepted the group's statements about the checking timeline. Given their memories I'd double-check if they told me what day it was.
Both the PJ and SY seem to have accepted the group's statements about the checking timeline. Given their memories I'd double-check if they told me what day it was.that makes you superior to the PJ and SY does it?
that makes you superior to the PJ and SY does it?
Why the superfluous epithet?
Its a FACT that at least half the tapas group didnt know what day it was or even what hour at any given time in their interviews both in portugal AND the UK!
Pointless witnesses for the most part.
Why the superfluous epithet?
Its a FACT that at least half the tapas group didnt know what day it was or even what hour at any given time in their interviews both in portugal AND the UK!
Pointless witnesses for the most part.
I was addressing G-Unit who seemed to be suggesting that she would be less likely to accept the word of these witnesses than would the Metropolitan Police or the Policia Judiciara, giving me the impression that she believes herself to be a more discerning interlocutor and judge than either of those two organisations. Like that or lump it.
The Pj/UK polices views on these so called witnesses is not known so youre not really in any position to judge in any case are you?
I think it's safe to assume they found the McCanns and their friends to be credible witnesses - otherwise they would not have been ruled out of the investigation by both police forces.
The fallibility of memory when it comes to recall by witnesses is well known to the police. They regard it as normal. But unlike some sceptics - they regard it as normal for all human beings - and not all human beings except the McCanns and Co.
what experience do you have in collating witness statements....none
When were the mccanns and co., questioned by SY ?
that makes you superior to the PJ and SY does it?
Nobody knows. Perhaps its just a myth.
I think it's safe to assume they found the McCanns and their friends to be credible witnesses - otherwise they would not have been ruled out of the investigation by both police forces.
The fallibility of memory when it comes to recall by witnesses is well known to the police. They regard it as normal. But unlike some sceptics - they regard it as normal for all human beings - and not all human beings except the McCanns and Co.
I couldn't possibly claim that Alfred, but thank you for the compliment. Do you see the amount of points you have been awarded for breaking the forum rules as some kind of badge of honour by the way? You seem inexplicably proud of them.I wasn't complimenting you, I was asking you. I consider your second & third sentences as an attempt to goad me and take this thread off topic. I would report it but it would be pointless (literally in your case!)
Nobody knows. Perhaps its just a myth.
The Pj/UK polices views on these so called witnesses is not known so youre not really in any position to judge in any case are you?For some inexplicable reason my perfectly civil and on topic response to your post was deleted in its entirety whilst your less than civil post above was allowed to remain, albeit edited to remove the incivility. A terrific example of the bias that now permeates this board, sadly.
When what people say doesn't make sense they are either idiots or there's something they don't want to tell you. How do I know this? I'm married and I brought up three kids.Did they play tennis with the exact same people on each day? When people misremember details of what they did a few days, months or years ago, I don't believe that they are either idiots or withholding information from me, I just think they're normal human beings who get muddled sometimes. I guess this makes me some sort of idiot too, in your opinion!
If someone plays tennis for an hour each day for four days it's difficult to believe they've forgotten which of their friends was playing.
I wasn't complimenting you, I was asking you. I consider your second & third sentences as an attempt to goad me and take this thread off topic. I would report it but it would be pointless (literally in your case!)
I answered you, too. How can I be goading when you're advertising your failure to keep within the rules? I was curious as to why you seem proud of the fact, that's all
Instead of attempting to answer my points you (subtly) accuse me of thinking I'm superior to the police. Isn't that goading? Reporting people isn't my style, however, so don't worry.
Perhaps you could try to explain why someone who plays tennis every day for an hour thinks a friend played too when she didn't? Not just an acquaintance, either. the friend who is the closest friend out of the group.
quite simple...most probably a badly taken./translated statement....like many of your observations
Stock answer number 2.
1. Memory is fallible
2. Translation issues
3. Mock/attempt to discredit the poster.
the truth can be painful;
I answered you, too. How can I be goading when you're advertising your failure to keep within the rules? I was curious as to why you seem proud of the fact, that's allI wasn't subtly accusing you of thinking anything - it was overt and obvious question. do you think you are superior in your processes of dedution to both afore mentioned police forces? You certainly give that impression very strongly.
Instead of attempting to answer my points you (subtly) accuse me of thinking I'm superior to the police. Isn't that goading? Reporting people isn't my style, however, so don't worry.
Perhaps you could try to explain why someone who plays tennis every day for an hour thinks a friend played too when she didn't? Not just an acquaintance, either. the friend who is the closest friend out of the group.
Did that hurt? Try being less predictable. You do know that the Rog. interviews were in English, don't you? Everyone knows that, surely.How many months after the tennis matches were the Rog interviews conducted, out of interest?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Tanner3of7_HO3.pdf
Did that hurt? Try being less predictable. You do know that the Rog. interviews were in English, don't you? Everyone knows that, surely.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Tanner3of7_HO3.pdf
I have never heard either police force state that they have 'ruled out' the T9. I have heard only Redwood's statement that they were not suspects or persons of interest, which could be related to his remit.
To say they are not suspects or persons of interest means they have ruled them out in my opinion, how else would they have come to that conclusion?
The police are called to a murder scene. Someone is dead in a house and the other inhabitants found them on their return from a wedding two hundred miles away. The time of death is three hours before the body was found. The police check the alibi of those who found the body. Three hours earlier they were saying goodbye to a large group of other guests at the wedding and getting into their car to drive back. I think the police could be said to have ruled them out.
The police are called to a holiday apartment because a child has disappeared. There is no evidence of forced entry and a door was left unlocked. The last people to see the child were her parents. They were at a local restaurant having a meal with 7 friends. Periodically the members of the group would leave the restaurant and return to the apartments to check on the children. One of them was seen close to the apartments early in the evening. None of the others were seen there. Restaurant staff confirmed that people left the table, but didn't see where they went and couldn't say who left and how long they were gone. As the toilets weren't in the restaurant people leaving the table could have been going there. One of the group did so, but none of the restaurant staff reported her trip. No-one was able to give an exact time when the child's mother found her missing. The resort staff were informed by another holiday maker, not by the group. the police were called 40 minutes after the disappearance was discovered. How is it possible to 'rule out' these parents and their friends?
Well obviously the have interviewed all relevant people, such as waiters etc. and come to the conclusion that what the parents and friends have said is correct.Lots of could have and would haves. Is there any evidence of any of it happening?
For a start the McCann's say the police were rang at about 10 past 10, who is to say that SY have not spoken to reception and that the person who was asked to ring the police has said that in fact he didn't, that he instead got in touch with the person the OC uses in these circumstances, as they have [according to one of the nannies] had children go missing before.
All witnesses would have been interviewed and that is how they come to a conclusion.
They could also have got in touch with the waiter who served them dinner, he could confirm what time they ordered dinner etc.
Lots of could have and would haves. Is there any evidence of any of it happening?
The police are called to a murder scene. Someone is dead in a house and the other inhabitants found them on their return from a wedding two hundred miles away. The time of death is three hours before the body was found. The police check the alibi of those who found the body. Three hours earlier they were saying goodbye to a large group of other guests at the wedding and getting into their car to drive back. I think the police could be said to have ruled them out.Because they applied the rules of logic and physics I would imagine.
The police are called to a holiday apartment because a child has disappeared. There is no evidence of forced entry and a door was left unlocked. The last people to see the child were her parents. They were at a local restaurant having a meal with 7 friends. Periodically the members of the group would leave the restaurant and return to the apartments to check on the children. One of them was seen close to the apartments early in the evening. None of the others were seen there. Restaurant staff confirmed that people left the table, but didn't see where they went and couldn't say who left and how long they were gone. As the toilets weren't in the restaurant people leaving the table could have been going there. One of the group did so, but none of the restaurant staff reported her trip. No-one was able to give an exact time when the child's mother found her missing. The resort staff were informed by another holiday maker, not by the group. the police were called 40 minutes after the disappearance was discovered. How is it possible to 'rule out' these parents and their friends?
SY went through every bit of the PJ investigation it took them months, years, and a lot of money, I would assume they were very thorough.I take it "would assume" means there is no evidence of it happening.
I take it "would assume" means there is no evidence of it happening.
Well obviously the have interviewed all relevant people, such as waiters etc. and come to the conclusion that what the parents and friends have said is correct.
For a start the McCann's say the police were rang at about 10 past 10, who is to say that SY have not spoken to reception and that the person who was asked to ring the police has said that in fact he didn't, that he instead got in touch with the person the OC uses in these circumstances, as they have [according to one of the nannies] had children go missing before.
All witnesses would have been interviewed and that is how they come to a conclusion.
They could also have got in touch with the waiter who served them dinner, he could confirm what time they ordered dinner etc.
All the people interviewed by the PJ on behalf of Operation Grange have been listed in the media. None of them were waiters or receptionists.
The only people listed in the media that I have seen have been those who have been suspects.
Were John and Donna Hill suspects? They were interviewed I believe.
Sorry could you give a link to the interview between John and Donna Hill and SY, G-Unit? It doesn't ring a bell with me.
All the people interviewed by the PJ on behalf of Operation Grange have been listed in the media. None of them were waiters or receptionists.Can you post a link to this definitive list of all individuals interviewed by Op Grange and the PJ please.
Sorry could you give a link to the interview between John and Donna Hill and SY, G-Unit? It doesn't ring a bell with me.The 11 people interviewed in Dec 2014, shortly before DCI redwood were interviewed as witnesses, not as arguidos. John Hill and Donna Hill were amongst those.
I think it's safe to assume they found the McCanns and their friends to be credible witnesses - otherwise they would not have been ruled out of the investigation by both police forces.
The fallibility of memory when it comes to recall by witnesses is well known to the police. They regard it as normal. But unlike some sceptics - they regard it as normal for all human beings - and not all human beings except the McCanns and Co.
In that case SY cannot say there was a window of opportunity.Why not?
Why not?
If we accept that due to human fallibility all the timings where at best approximate, no one can say if there was a gap for anyone to remove Madeleine from the apartment.If the police have pieced together a sequence of events, of who said who was where relative to each other then exact timings would not be essential. It would still be possible to work out a window of opportunity. It's where a computer like HOLMES that is able to process such information comes into its own, processing all the variables and coming out with the most logical sequence of events.
"When G phoned Leicestershire police to speak to DC Johnson, they were puzzled. They said ... they had no DC Johnson working for them".
But there is a statement by DC Johnson in the files
Human error, probably. Maybe a new telephonist who didn't check the CID list of employees.DC Johnson was a family liaison officer in PDL therefore had spoken with the couple in May 2007
DC Johnson was a family liaison officer in PDL therefore had spoken with the couple in May 2007
"I was sent to Portugal in the official role of liaison officer to the McCann family"
The officer definitely exists, therefore the statement in the book (that the phonecall to Canade was a made by a dishonest journalist impersonating a non-existent police officer) is incorrect.
is Johnson an unusual name?The statement which proves the officer does exist is Cartas Rogatorias Vol 7 p 5
What were the officers first names?
IMO baby parents picked up babies from baby club itself.Pegasus G-unit or anyone else - do you know what name the Wilkin's kids were listed as on the creche records I can see a "william" in the Dolphins group and a "Susy" that seem to be signed out by JEZ or BO in the group with Sean and Amelie. Were they the right names? The apartment 4GM seem to tie in with the apartment assigned to Wilkins.
Pegasus G-unit or anyone else - do you know what name the Wilkin's kids were listed as on the creche records I can see a "william" in the Dolphins group and a "Susy" that seem to be signed out by JEZ or BO in the group with Sean and Amelie. Were they the right names? The apartment 4GM seem to tie in with the apartment assigned to Wilkins.Please check this out. In the Jellyfish group the kid being dropped off from room G4M is a kid called “Lucy” and note he is supposed to be a boy if he is the youngest of JEZ and BO's children. You can just about make out the signatures of JEZ or BO in the creche records. But in Jez and BO statements they don't say they occupy this room either but agree it was in block 4 G but they don't say apartment “M”.
Please check this out. In the Jellyfish group the kid being dropped off from room G4M is a kid called “Lucy” and note he is supposed to be a boy if he is the youngest of JEZ and BO's children. You can just about make out the signatures of JEZ or BO in the creche records. But in Jez and BO statements they don't say they occupy this room either but agree it was in block 4 G but they don't say apartment “M”.
“Jeremy and Bridget have been married for several years and have two children, XXXX (F) 3 yrs and XXXX (M) 8 months. It may be of interest to note that these names are Hebrew names and spellings have been checked.
Upon arrival in the resort they were allocated apartment O in block G4. This block being situated near the tennis courts and adjacent to the block in which the McCann's apartment was situated.”
But Jez and BO never use apartment “O” on the creche forms
.
“I was with my wife Bridget O'Donnell, my daughter Orly, who is three (3) and Arlo, my son who is eight (8) months. We were placed into the apartment within block G4, apartment JMO on letter O”
So from that you can possibly get G4M if the top Level is Level "O".
Pegasus G-unit or anyone else - do you know what name the Wilkin's kids were listed as on the creche records I can see a "william" in the Dolphins group and a "Susy" that seem to be signed out by JEZ or BO in the group with Sean and Amelie. Were they the right names? The apartment 4GM seem to tie in with the apartment assigned to Wilkins.
Miss O was the three year old, infant A was 8 months old.Note this was the state of knowledge as at the 27th April 2007. Could they have planned to extend their holiday so Kate thought they had booked a two week holiday, that is still possible. We still don't seem to marry up the thoughts of Kate to the facts as presented so far.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_337.jpg
The Totman family were allocated G4M.I had just realised this fact prior to reading your post so I do feel confused but not really dumb.
I had just realised this fact prior to reading your post so I do feel confused but not really dumb.
I know the name "Jeni Weinberger" also came up before too. Also staying in the 4G block of apartments. [It can't have been this forum as there is only one mention of Jeni Weinberger this post.]
She was in G4L.in the may 7th Statement "On Saturday , 28th April, 2007, we arrived at the Ocean Club resort, Garden Apartments, Praia da Luz, Algarve. I was with my wife Bridget O'Donnell, my daughter Orly, who is three (3) and Arlo, my son who is eight (8) months. We were placed into the apartment within block G4, apartment JMO on letter O. There are about 15 to 20 apartments within each block. The McCann family was within the next block."
in the may 7th Statement "On Saturday , 28th April, 2007, we arrived at the Ocean Club resort, Garden Apartments, Praia da Luz, Algarve. I was with my wife Bridget O'Donnell, my daughter Orly, who is three (3) and Arlo, my son who is eight (8) months. We were placed into the apartment within block G4, apartment JMO on letter O. There are about 15 to 20 apartments within each block. The McCann family was within the next block."
What is this JMO bit about?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
Please check this out. In the Jellyfish group the kid being dropped off from room G4M is a kid called “Lucy” and note he is supposed to be a boy if he is the youngest of JEZ and BO's children. You can just about make out the signatures of JEZ or BO in the creche records. But in Jez and BO statements they don't say they occupy this room either but agree it was in block 4 G but they don't say apartment “M”.
“Jeremy and Bridget have been married for several years and have two children, XXXX (F) 3 yrs and XXXX (M) 8 months. It may be of interest to note that these names are Hebrew names and spellings have been checked.
Upon arrival in the resort they were allocated apartment O in block G4. This block being situated near the tennis courts and adjacent to the block in which the McCann's apartment was situated.”
But Jez and BO never use apartment “O” on the creche forms
.
“I was with my wife Bridget O'Donnell, my daughter Orly, who is three (3) and Arlo, my son who is eight (8) months. We were placed into the apartment within block G4, apartment JMO on letter O”
So from that you can possibly get G4M if the top Level is Level "O".
The 3 year old was in the other Mini group [not Lobsters]. The baby was in the baby creche. There are no sign in sheets for either of them in the files.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_352.jpg which line on that sheet relates to the family concerned? Can you then tell me what that line then translate to.
In Block 4 were O'Donnell G40, Weinburger G4L, Totman G4M, a Thomas Cook booking Bowness G4I.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_352.jpg
The child in the Jellyfish group was Lucy Totman, aged 2.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CRECHE/Processo-pdf01pages108-118%20[112-120]/processopdf01page113-CrecheRecordsS.jpg
...Copy the ENTIRE link (up to and including the .jpg) into your browser.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CRECHE/Processo-pdf01pages108-118%20[112-120]/processopdf01page113-CrecheRecordsS.jpg Would not open for me 404 Error.
...
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_352.jpg which line on that sheet relates to the family concerned? Can you then tell me what that line then translate to.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CRECHE/Processo-pdf01pages108-118%20[112-120]/processopdf01page113-CrecheRecordsS.jpg Would not open for me 404 Error.
"In Block 4 were O'Donnell G40, Weinburger G4L, Totman G4M, a Thomas Cook booking Bowness G4I." Do these families have some common purpose of being there. Were they connected in some way?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_352.jpg What is the purpose of this sheet?
Sorry, this link gives all Mark Warner arrivals. If you scroll down there are also computer printouts giving the apartments people were allocated to.I've been through them already but since there is no "sharks" or "baby club" sheets they don't help me with understanding what Jeremy Wilkins and Bridget O'Donnell do with their kids. IMO that couple are the key to understanding what happened to Madeleine. Jes was right outside The McCann's apartment at 9:15. There is more to it somehow but we need data.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARRIVALS.htm
Here are the creche sheets.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CRECHE.htm
I've been through them already but since there is no "sharks" or "baby club" sheets they don't help me with understanding what Jeremy Wilkins and Bridget O'Donnell do with their kids. IMO that couple are the key to understanding what happened to Madeleine. Jes was right outside The McCann's apartment at 9:15. There is more to it somehow but we need data.
Perhaps (shock, horror), they actually looked after them themselvesJassi explain that in a few more words please.
[ Inappropriate comment removed ]
In their statement they say they used the creches and the baby sitting service.
Yes, their children attended creches. Both were situated above main reception on Rua Direita [Minis and Babies]. The anomaly is Bridget O'Donnell's emotive article where she describes taking the children to their creches on the 4th.I think the clue is in the wording.
We walked towards the kiddie club. No one else was there. We felt awful, such terrible parents for even considering the idea. Then we saw, waiting inside, some of the Mark Warner nannies. They had been up most of the night but had still turned up to work that day. They were intelligent, thoughtful young women and we liked and trusted them. The dance show was cancelled, but they wanted to put on a normal day for the children. Our daughter ran inside and started painting. Then, behind us, another set of parents arrived looking equally washed out. Then another, and another. We decided, in the end, to leave them for two hours. We put their bags on the pegs and saw the one labelled "Madeleine". Heads bent, we walked away, into the guilty glare of the morning sun.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Heartbreaking, isn't it. Seeing Madeleine's empty peg at the Kiddie Club? But....according to Russell O'Brien all the children were together at the Tapas creche on the 4th. Madeleine had never been to that creche, so there wouldn't have been a peg there with her name on it. Journalistic licence?
MARK WARNER had said, you know, ‘We’ll open the crèche and all of the children can stay at the Tapas irrespective of age and there’s more staff on there so’, you know, ‘if you do need to go to’, you know, ‘the Police it’s covered throughout the day’,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
I think the clue is in the wording.
The Wilkins took their daughter to her normal creche in the main building. That is where they saw the coat peg. The attending children were then transferred to the Tapas.
I have to admire your boundless ability to find explanations for any strange statements, despite having nothing at all to support them.Why cant you understand it Gunit? Seems clear to me, the children were transferred.
I have to admire your boundless ability to find explanations for any strange statements, despite having nothing at all to support them.
Something out of nothing, that is the whole tenure of this thread. The above coat peg debate is a prime example.
Could be but then again one never knows... &%+((£You think the coat peg "mystery" might be something then?
You think the coat peg "mystery" might be something then?
Yes, their children attended creches. Both were situated above main reception on Rua Direita [Minis and Babies]. The anomaly is Bridget O'Donnell's emotive article where she describes taking the children to their creches on the 4th.But if we are allowed to accuse her of journalistic license where does it stop? Show me the register for that day.
We walked towards the kiddie club. No one else was there. We felt awful, such terrible parents for even considering the idea. Then we saw, waiting inside, some of the Mark Warner nannies. They had been up most of the night but had still turned up to work that day. They were intelligent, thoughtful young women and we liked and trusted them. The dance show was cancelled, but they wanted to put on a normal day for the children. Our daughter ran inside and started painting. Then, behind us, another set of parents arrived looking equally washed out. Then another, and another. We decided, in the end, to leave them for two hours. We put their bags on the pegs and saw the one labelled "Madeleine". Heads bent, we walked away, into the guilty glare of the morning sun.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Heartbreaking, isn't it. Seeing Madeleine's empty peg at the Kiddie Club? But....according to Russell O'Brien all the children were together at the Tapas creche on the 4th. Madeleine had never been to that creche, so there wouldn't have been a peg there with her name on it. Journalistic licence?
MARK WARNER had said, you know, ‘We’ll open the crèche and all of the children can stay at the Tapas irrespective of age and there’s more staff on there so’, you know, ‘if you do need to go to’, you know, ‘the Police it’s covered throughout the day’,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
I know that Mark Warner gave all guests a letter telling them what had happened overnight. If they were planning to use just the Tapas crèche building it could have been in the letter. [I can make assumptions too]
Russell's statement was quite clear to me thank you.
A worthwhile exercise would be to try to determine from the crech lists which child Crecheman was carrying.
I don't think that would be fair to the father to name him on here. However, I don't believe he was Tannerman.Have you done it? Could it be done?
Have you done it? Could it be done?
I couldn't possibly say. 8**8:/:So where did you start?
A worthwhile exercise would be to try to determine from the crech lists which child Crecheman was carrying.
If you use only the complete police files and the SY release it's actually not possible to id crecheman because (even after accounting for colour) there will always more than one candidate. Also there is a level of deliberate obfuscation in what SY released to make you not get it. However they are not perfect at it and it's possible to solve by being obsessively observant of the even the tiniest irrelevant details but nobody has got it. Anyway it's irrelevant because please note SY have already ruled this witness out.When did they rule this guy out? Rule him out for what? Ruled out for being Tannerman?
When did they rule this guy out? Rule him out for what? Ruled out for being Tannerman?Suggest you watch the Crimewatch Special Robbity as it is a useful method of learning what it contains
If you use only the complete police files and the SY release it's actually not possible to id crecheman because (even after accounting for colour) there will always more than one candidate. Also there is a level of deliberate obfuscation in what SY released to make you not get it. However they are not perfect at it and it's possible to solve by being obsessively observant of the even the tiniest irrelevant details but nobody has got it. Anyway it's irrelevant because please note SY have already ruled this witness out.
Are you saying I was wrong from the picture I found?If SY age info is correct there are 3 candidates at least, so just finding a picture of one or another is in itself not a solution Misty, something more would be needed.
If SY age info is correct there are 3 candidates at least, so just finding a picture of one or another is in itself not a solution Misty, something more would be needed.Do you know who Crecheman is Pegasus?
If you use only the complete police files and the SY release it's actually not possible to id crecheman because (even after accounting for colour) there will always more than one candidate. Also there is a level of deliberate obfuscation in what SY released to make you not get it. However they are not perfect at it and it's possible to solve by being obsessively observant of the even the tiniest irrelevant details but nobody has got it. Anyway it's irrelevant because please note SY have already ruled this witness out.Could you tell me openly who you are referring to when you say SY have already ruled this witness out
Could you tell me openly who you are referring to when you say SY have already ruled this witness outThis was explained by the head of Op Grange in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y
This was explained by the head of Op Grange in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8YSmithman
Smithmanhttp://youtu.be/OZ8jmdWlB8Y?t=22m53s "we are almost certain now..."
Crecheman
Smithman
Which one?
http://youtu.be/OZ8jmdWlB8Y?t=22m53s "we are almost certain now..."Smithman is not the abductor - I'd worked that out. To me it was a person carrying an unconscious child remember.
Smithman is not the abductor - I'd worked that out. To me it was a person carrying an unconscious child remember.IMO the Smith sighting is irrelevant Robbity. It's absurd for the investigators to make the bizarre assumption, that the solution must involve a perp openly carrying a visible child through populated streets.
IMO the Smith sighting is irrelevant Robbity. It's absurd for the investigators to make the bizarre assumption, that the solution must involve a perp openly carrying a visible child through populated streets.
IMO the Smith sighting is irrelevant Robbity. It's absurd for the investigators to make the bizarre assumption, that the solution must involve a perp openly carrying a visible child through populated streets.
OK, so what about if the "get away" vehicle was unable to pick up, frightened off because Gerry and Jez were so close and Jane Tanner had witnessed Madeleine being abducted ? Have you disallowed that?IMO no-one transported anyone or anything relevant that night by foot or vehicle.
I think that the getaway vehicle was parked on the little parking area immediately opposite the Tapas reception .... and the driver would have had to pass Gerry, Jez and Jane to reach the abductor Tannerman. Seeing them he took fright and drove off south down the road Rua Dr F.G.Martins, abandoning Tannerman with Madeleine.
IMO no-one transported anyone or anything relevant that night by foot or vehicle.
IYO..I have absolutely no theory about any mode of transportation that night Sadie.
OK, fair enough, stalemate. 8((()*/
You have a theory and I have a totally different theory .... and my guess is that unless you produce some pretty substantial stuff, that is the way it will remain.
IMO the Smith sighting is irrelevant Robbity. It's absurd for the investigators to make the bizarre assumption, that the solution must involve a perp openly carrying a visible child through populated streets.No perps, just good caring people IMO.
She could hold vital timeline information. Did she witness the alarm being raised? How long after the alarm did she leave? Did she know the time? It could take her about 5 minutes to walk that distance. The mother arrived at the night creche at 10:05 from JW statement informing them about the disappearance.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
Statement of Najoua Chekaya
09.30 she walked to Lagos from where she returned at about 11.30 and at about 11.45 went for lunch at the Tapas restaurant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NAJOUA_CHEKAYA.htm
According to Google Maps it takes between 2 and 2.5 hours to walk from Luz to Lagos.
"caminhada" also means "outing" according to Google Translate.
https://translate.google.co.uk/#pt/en/caminhada
Statement of Najoua ChekayaDo you mean return walk?
09.30 she walked to Lagos from where she returned at about 11.30 and at about 11.45 went for lunch at the Tapas restaurant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NAJOUA_CHEKAYA.htm
According to Google Maps it takes between 2 and 2.5 hours to walk from Luz to Lagos.
Do you mean return walk?
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowTopic-g189117-i688-k8474457-Walk_from_Lagos_to_Praia_
She said she walked to Lagos. If she took the cliff path it takes 1.5 hours to Porto de Mos beach which is a 40 minute walk from Lagos. A total of 2 hours 10 minutes.
It's probably a mistake and she went by car.
We dont know which part of Lagos she was going to and it's quite big. Also very fit so she maybe jogged part of the way
Is it important?