Visits to the play area after tea. What is the truth?

[G-Unit]

Is that a 'no' then?
So she didn't get Kate's briefing of description then? Or she did? She was in the room?

Or at the table? Kate told 'everyone else'; does that mean the rest of the group? She didn't tell Emma Knight, Fiona did. So how did Fiona know what Madeleine was wearing? Did Kate tell her at the table or in the room or at the table in the room? Was 'everyone' there except Jane? How does Jane know if she wasn't there. We know they were all at the restaurant table except Jane, but why would Kate tell them what Madeleine was wearing then, before she disappeared?

Jane seemed to suffer a meltdown in response to a very simple question imo. Perhaps she didn't see it as a simple question for some reason?

[The General]

Or at the table? Kate told 'everyone else'; does that mean the rest of the group? She didn't tell Emma Knight, Fiona did. So how did Fiona know what Madeleine was wearing? Did Kate tell her at the table or in the room or at the table in the room? Was 'everyone' there except Jane? How does Jane know if she wasn't there. We know they were all at the restaurant table except Jane, but why would Kate tell them what Madeleine was wearing then, before she disappeared?

Jane seemed to suffer a meltdown in response to a very simple question imo. Perhaps she didn't see it as a simple question for some reason?

Might be one to ask the top sleuth, Gonzo: when did Kate issue this briefing on what Maddie was wearing and who was present?

[pathfinder73]

Looks like more poor translation

No that was normal procedure and it only changed on 3 May 2007 - the children not going to the play area after tea. When you look at any case you look at changes in normal routine behaviour. That one stands out as well as a visit at normal bath time.

[Erngath]

No that was normal procedure and it only changed on 3 May 2007 - the children not going to the play area after tea. When you look at any case you look at changes in normal routine behaviour. That one stands out as well as a visit at normal bath time.

Holiday time surely means being away from "normal routine behaviour" ?
How can routine behaviour be established during one week's holiday?

[pathfinder73]

Every evening that was the routine - after high tea straight to play area. But NOT on Thursday then Maddy's gone. That is a good starting point and then you find another unusual happening that evening - an unexpected visit.

First statement omit these important 'changes in normal routine' facts:

Thursday May 3rd 2007
Yesterday, after the daily routine, Madeleine and the twins went to bed at around 7.30. They were in their respective beds.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm

[faithlilly]

Or at the table? Kate told 'everyone else'; does that mean the rest of the group? She didn't tell Emma Knight, Fiona did. So how did Fiona know what Madeleine was wearing? Did Kate tell her at the table or in the room or at the table in the room? Was 'everyone' there except Jane? How does Jane know if she wasn't there. We know they were all at the restaurant table except Jane, but why would Kate tell them what Madeleine was wearing then, before she disappeared?

Jane seemed to suffer a meltdown in response to a very simple question imo. Perhaps she didn't see it as a simple question for some reason?

Kate told Fiona what Madeleine was wearing...Fiona spoke to Jane who told her about seeing a man with a child. Is it really believable that Fiona didn’t ask Jane to describe what the child was wearing, if only to rule her out as being Madeleine  ?m

[Erngath]

Typical Glaswegian!  Reminiscent of Rab C Nesbitt!

Och no dear, not typical at all.
Glaswegians never bathe their children nor put them in pyjamas!

Quite posh actually do so!
Must be Kate's posh Liverpudlian influence.

NB.
Rab C is not a typical Glaswegian.
How quaint  are your perceptions of Glaswegians!

[G-Unit]

Kate told Fiona what Madeleine was wearing...Fiona spoke to Jane who told her about seeing a man with a child. Is it really believable that Fiona didn’t ask Jane to describe what the child was wearing, if only to rule her out as being Madeleine  ?m

We know that Fiona knew because she told Emma Knight. According to Emma this occured before 10:30pm. So at some point between 10:00 and 10:30pm Kate told Fiona what Madeleine was wearing.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Every evening that was the routine - after high tea straight to play area. But NOT on Thursday then Maddy's gone. That is a good starting point and then you find another unusual happening that evening - an unexpected visit.

First statement omit these important 'changes in normal routine' facts:

Thursday May 3rd 2007
Yesterday, after the daily routine, Madeleine and the twins went to bed at around 7.30. They were in their respective beds.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm

And that wasn't the only strange change in routine that evening. The McCann children had more physical checks that evening- even though the system was supposed to be 'listen at door'.

David re the after high tea,
then another tapas male has a look around the McCanns bedroom (that is really weird in itself,why do that and not check on the children?), then Gerry noticing (due to a moving door), and finally Kate on noticing (moving door,shutters,window and curtains).

The ONE evening the children had a more  physical checks, One disappears!


" How does Jane know if she wasn't there. We know they were all at the restaurant table except Jane, but why would Kate tell them what Madeleine was wearing then, before she disappeared?"

Especially when the McCanns stood on the Oprah show holding up the jammies claiming this is what their friend recognized- who saw the abductor. She saw and recognised the jammies?

Her memory certainly improved over the time...

[G-Unit]

And that wasn't the only strange change in routine that evening. The McCann children had more physical checks that evening- even though the system was supposed to be 'listen at door'.

David re the after high tea,
then another tapas male has a look around the McCanns bedroom (that is really weird in itself,why do that and not check on the children?), then Gerry noticing (due to a moving door), and finally Kate on noticing (moving door,shutters,window and curtains).

The ONE evening the children had a more  physical checks, One disappears!


" How does Jane know if she wasn't there. We know they were all at the restaurant table except Jane, but why would Kate tell them what Madeleine was wearing then, before she disappeared?"

Especially when the McCanns stood on the Oprah show holding up the jammies claiming this is what their friend recognized- who saw the abductor. She saw and recognised the jammies?

Her memory certainly improved over the time...

According to Silvia Batista, this is what Jane told the GNR initially;

At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm

[Mr Gray]

According to Silvia Batista, this is what Jane told the GNR initially;

At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm

A very obvious mistranslation... Jane would have said might be carrying the child... Not a child.. Imo

[jassi]

IMO the more important word there is 'might'

[Brietta]

IMO the more important word there is 'might'

Let's not start yet another myth, folks!!!

I don't think 'might' comes into it at all ... Jane is clear on exactly what she saw and she never deviated from that.

From Jane Tanner's statement on 4th May 2007 ...
Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.

The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from.

___________________________________________________

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

As regards these details, she does not know what Madeleine was wearing at the moment of her disappearance, because she did not talk to anyone about this.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

[The General]

A very obvious mistranslation... Jane would have said might be carrying the child... Not a child.. Imo

What? So carrying a child or not? Like firewood, remember, so.......it was firewood? In pink pyjamas?

[jassi]

Hardly a myth if it's in an official statement - IMO