At what time were the police called after Madeleine's disappearance?

[Benice]

It is normal practice for hotels to have the telephone number of the local police station to hand thus avoiding the need to go through the national emergency network in many cases.  Calling the local police station directly ensures that the correct information is passed to those who need to know.  You also have to remember that the vast majority of any calls made by a hotel to the police are routine and not emergency calls.  I am not surprised in the least that the receptionist called the local station to report a missing youngster.

Remember also that this receptionist knew about the furore and the missing girl as early as about 22.10 but did nothing.  He was asked to phone the police but didn't do so.  He  was very content to wait and see the outcome of the hotels missing child plan before contacting anyone and that included the resort manager.  For all intents and purposes this was a child who had wandered off as far as the staff were concerned thus the searches all around the premises using torches.  By about 22.30 the penny had dropped....this was not a child who had wandered off but something more sinister.  Thus the first call to police a few minutes later at 22.41. By then the resort manager Mr Hill had arrived on site and was then beginning to get agitated about the absence of the police.  That is when the receptionist put in the second call to the GNR at 22.52.  The GNR for their part were not in any hurry to attend the scene as the missing child was NOT notified to them as an abduction.  Bad Press you see, no need to make a big deal about it?  It was only when they got the second call that the police realised that they might have a bigger problem than they were initially alerted to.  Fortunately for them though they were only a few minutes away from Praia da Luz by that point and arrived 10 minutes later at 23.00.

I would say it is unlikely that anyone else phoned the police by 22.52 since had they done so the GNR would have been alerted to a more serious problem than they were first alerted to.  As far as they were concerned when they received the first call from reception at 22.41 this was a youngster who had wandered off, nothing more.  However by 22.52 they began to realise that they might have a more serious issue to deal with and alerted the mobile patrol accordingly.

I think that's a fair summary of events Matthew - except that I would say it was the McCanns who were getting frantic when the police had not arrived by the time Mr Hill arrived,  because having sent Matt over to reception earlier to ask for the police to be called - they were under the impression that that call had actually been made as requested, and could not understand why the police had not yet arrived.

[Matthew Wyse]

My sentiments exactly Benice.  After over half an hour the McCanns must have been frantic with worry alright as the staff failed to find any trace of her.  Surely it was a sign that all was not as it should be when cuddle cat was still there???

Can someone answer this for me.  I keep seeing references to the beach as if it was nearby???  Even the reference to the search arrangements by Lindsay above mention it. Why on earth would they want to search a beach which was over a quarter of a mile away before searching the surrounding streets and paths first?  And especially in the dark.  No 4 year old child would know where the beach was in daylight let alone in the dark???

[icabodcrane]

My sentiments exactly Benice.  After over half an hour the McCanns must have been frantic with worry alright as the staff failed to find any trace of her.  Surely it was a sign that all was as it should be too when cuddle cat was still there???

Can someone answer this for me.  I keep seeing references to the beach as if it was nearby???  Even the reference to the search arrangements by Lindsay above mention it. Why on earth would they want to search a beach which was over a quarter of a mile away before searching the surrounding streets and paths first?  And especially in the dark.  No 4 year old child would know where the beach was in daylight let alone in the dark???

Perhaps their missing child protocol  (  as in 'child who may have wandered off and got lost'  )  was implemented because that was the only plan they had to follow   ...  even though,  as you say,  searching for a three year old on a beach some distance away, at night,  makes little sense

The plan was probably in place to deal with youngsters who 'got lost'  during daylight hours  ...  it is highly  unlikely that staff would have been trained to deal with the situation they were faced with, or that a specific procedure would be in place for such an eventuality

[AnneGuedes]

Why on earth would they want to search a beach which was over a quarter of a mile away before searching the surrounding streets and paths first?  And especially in the dark.  No 4 year old child would know where the beach was in daylight let alone in the dark???

They guessed Madeleine had gone out in search of her parents. Matthew Oldfield thought she could have taken the familiar route to the main reception. This is likely why he went there instead of asking the Tapas staff to call the main reception.

[Carana]

My sentiments exactly Benice.  After over half an hour the McCanns must have been frantic with worry alright as the staff failed to find any trace of her.  Surely it was a sign that all was as it should be too when cuddle cat was still there???

Can someone answer this for me.  I keep seeing references to the beach as if it was nearby???  Even the reference to the search arrangements by Lindsay above mention it. Why on earth would they want to search a beach which was over a quarter of a mile away before searching the surrounding streets and paths first?  And especially in the dark.  No 4 year old child would know where the beach was in daylight let alone in the dark???

Perhaps their missing child protocol  (  as in 'child who may have wandered off and got lost'  )  was implemented because that was the only plan they had to follow   ...  even though,  as you say,  searching for a three year old on a beach some distance away, at night,  makes little sense

The plan was probably in place to deal with youngsters who 'got lost'  during daylight hours  ...  it is highly  unlikely that staff would have been trained to deal with the situation they were faced with, or that a specific procedure would be in place for such an eventuality

I find the idea that the protocol was to deal with daytime situations quite feasible.

I'm not even sure how many torches or headlamps were available - people were ringing around to try to get hold of more.

Lots of people did join in the search, which is heartwarming, but it must have been a bit chaotic at night.

[AnneGuedes]

Some probably thought their voices could scare her.

[Redblossom]

Response to Mrs B's post on the other thread at 7.25pm so as not to derail that one any more
Quote Mrs B
I maintain that there are CONFLICTING witness statements contained within the files & I also maintain that the telephone records ONLY show that a phone call was made at a certain time from that particular line. That, in itself, does not EXCLUDE that a phone call could have been made EARLIER from another line or a mobile phone.

It's not difficult!
Unquote
***


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

See bottom of page, the second picture details the first and second call, highlighted in yellow, ALL OC extensions are included for calls made out

Is your argument that a call was made to either 112 or the local GNR and it was in the first instance, not put through to the local GNR immediately by the 112 operators? Or any call made to the GNR outwith the main reception on a landline or mobile was not recorded by the GNR? Highly unlikely.

PJ  report states when the call came through

Informed about the disappearance, the whole group went to the McCann's apartment, accompanied by OC employees, who searched the apartment and the adjacent area several times, without results. The call to the GNR took place at 22.41, according to the list in folio 3051.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_CARLOS.htm

[Mrs. B]

I have read it, in fact, I've read most of the files. I still haven't seen any records relating to mobile phones. If you have access to them, I would be most interested. Thanks you!

[Redblossom]

I have read it, in fact, I've read most of the files. I still haven't seen any records relating to mobile phones. If you have access to them, I would be most interested. Thanks you!

Irrelevant until you answer my queries, thats presuming your last post was a response to mine

[Mrs. B]

Irrelevant, as you have not made any query. 

[Redblossom]

Irrelevant, as you have not made any query.

Do reread my second paragraph, after the first link,in your haste perhaps you overlooked it

Edited for clarity

[Mrs. B]

Yes, I claim that there is a possibility that a receptionist could have called local police using a mobile phone. The reference 3051 mentioned in Joao Carlos statement is in fact the telephone record referred to in your first link, i.e. not a separate GNR log. Therefore I cannot EXCLUDE the possibility that a receptionist could have used a mobile phone to make a local call to the police. Something that is routinely done in any reception all over the world, in my experience.

[Redblossom]

So why is there no police record? And why do the Pj say the call came in at 22 41 and not any mention of a call before

?

Why the insistence an earlier call was made? Or probably was made or possible  was made? Witness statements on the timeline are all over the shop, they are only valid if corroborated by others and by hard evidence imo and none of that is happening here

Edited for afterthought

[Mrs. B]

No, what I'm saying is that the possibility cannot be EXCLUDED & as far as I can tell, nobody has so far provided any document that does exclude it.

[Redblossom]

No, what I'm saying is that the possibility cannot be EXCLUDED & as far as I can tell, nobody has so far provided any document that does exclude it.

Why does a remote possibility that someone rang police before the police say they did need to be excluded? Or included for that matter

Bottom line, what is the problem here?