Richard Hall's film 'When Madeleine Died?' uploaded to YouTube 19th Feb

[xtina]

Dianne Webster says she saw the children at high tea,   she specifically says she didn't see Madeleine on the Thursday as she was at the beach,  but she says she saw the children the rest of the week.   No where in her statement does she say Madeleine was missing from high tea up to the Thursday.

Then of course I doubt if the word of Dianne Webster will be believed either.

I remember reading her statement and as far as i remember ,,,,she could hardly remember anything

purely  non commital............i think ...i don't remember ...etc etc

okay....you can be forgiven for ..forgetting what happend after maddie went .[shock etc]...but not the days before ...

and
4078    ”A long day.”
 Reply    ”Yeah, yeah err and then Sunday I mean everyday is so much the same I just find it very difficult to recollect.”

[jassi]

I remember reading her statement and as far as i remember ,,,,she could hardly remember anything

purely  non commital............i think ...i don't remember ...etc etc

okay....you can be forgiven for ..forgetting what happend after maddie went .[shock etc]...but not the days before ...

and
4078    ”A long day.”
 Reply    ”Yeah, yeah err and then Sunday I mean everyday is so much the same I just find it very difficult to recollect.”

I get much  the same after a few Gin & Tonics.

[Brietta]

Richard Hall has rehashed a myth which has grown very tired in the telling and retelling ... and it appears to be the only 'information' which he has imparted in four hours of video, glad he managed to miss out on "clones".  Or did he?  Not having the stamina to sit through four hours of drivel, I suppose I will never know and I will care even less.

OK ... back to basics.

Did he give any indication of how the supposed foul deed came about?  Was it accidental?  Was it deliberate?

Did he give any indication of where the the corpse was stored in the period between death and being seen carried through the streets of Luz?
I don't think Mary Smith's question would have been, "Is she sleeping?"  The bloating and bodily secretions leaking from the nose and mouth would have been a dead giveaway ... pun intended.

The practicalities of concealing a dead child's body for a period of days seems to have been so challenging that Richard Hall has glossed them over and gone right to the ludicrous suggestion that she wasn't seen on her holiday.

Cleaners cleaned the apartment and surrounding areas ...
Gardeners and maintenance were working ...
Holidaymakers were on the beach and all over the place ...
Locals walking their dogs or otherwise going about their business ...

Why did none spot the body of a dead child?  I suggest because there wasn't one.  I suggest that the people on record as having either seen or had contact with Madeleine McCann during the week of her holiday were neither mistaken nor part of a world wide conspiracy cover-up.

They saw an innocent little girl enjoying her holiday in the bosom of her family like all the other children there;  she was the one who didn't come home ... not because of anything which some self seeking nonentity suggest happened to her on the Sunday ... but because of what happened to her on the Thursday of that week when she was stolen from her bed.

[Brietta]

I totally agree Lace.   There was absolutely no reason for the nannies to lie about anything - unless we are to believe they agreed to be part of a conspiracy to cover up the death of a child - a concept which is straight out of fantasyland IMO as there is not a single credible reason why several normal, sane people  would agree to do something which is obviously sooooooo stupid  - not to mention dangerous.      The whole idea is bonkers imo.

IMO all witnesses genuinely and truthfully gave their accounts of that week to the best of their ability.  However - due to the fallibility of memory -  that doesn't mean their recollections would always be 100%  accurate - so obviously there will be discrepancies. 

IMO some sceptics clearly do not comprehend that fact and believe that discrepancies automatically mean that people must be deliberately lying - and hence barmy conspiracies (like this one)  are born.   

Fortunately for the justice system - professional, experienced policemen know better.

Madeleine's presence may not have been specifically noticed by those who didn't have to know she was there as those taking her to and from activities had to know ... but I suggest had she not been present it would have caused comment and excuses would have been required to explain her absence.

The suggestion she was not seen from Sunday onwards is ludicrous.

[xtina]

Richard Hall has rehashed a myth which has grown very tired in the telling and retelling ... and it appears to be the only 'information' which he has imparted in four hours of video, glad he managed to miss out on "clones".  Or did he?  Not having the stamina to sit through four hours of drivel, I suppose I will never know and I will care even less.

OK ... back to basics.

Did he give any indication of how the supposed foul deed came about?  Was it accidental?  Was it deliberate?

Did he give any indication of where the the corpse was stored in the period between death and being seen carried through the streets of Luz?
I don't think Mary Smith's question would have been, "Is she sleeping?"  The bloating and bodily secretions leaking from the nose and mouth would have been a dead giveaway ... pun intended.

The practicalities of concealing a dead child's body for a period of days seems to have been so challenging that Richard Hall has glossed them over and gone right to the ludicrous suggestion that she wasn't seen on her holiday.

Cleaners cleaned the apartment and surrounding areas ...
Gardeners and maintenance were working ...
Holidaymakers were on the beach and all over the place ...
Locals walking their dogs or otherwise going about their business ...

Why did none spot the body of a dead child?  I suggest because there wasn't one.  I suggest that the people on record as having either seen or had contact with Madeleine McCann during the week of her holiday were neither mistaken nor part of a world wide conspiracy cover-up.

They saw an innocent little girl enjoying her holiday in the bosom of her family like all the other children there;  she was the one who didn't come home ... not because of anything which some self seeking nonentity suggest happened to her on the Sunday ... but because of what happened to her on the Thursday of that week when she was stolen from her bed.

i suggest you ask ...RDH...he has a page for anything you disagree with

[xtina]

Madeleine's presence may not have been specifically noticed by those who didn't have to know she was there as those taking her to and from activities had to know ... but I suggest had she not been present it would have caused comment and excuses would have been required to explain her absence.

The suggestion she was not seen from Sunday onwards is ludicrous.

not as ludicrous.....as the abduction....[ah one of mccs  favorite words]

mccs said maddie was abducted .....to this day ...nothing to..... back that up .

[Brietta]

not as ludicrous.....as the abduction....[ah one of mccs  favorite words]

mccs said maddie was abducted .....to this day ...nothing to..... back that up .

I didn't mention 'abduction'.  My post was about Richard Hall's assertion (??? apparently, as I have not watched his videos) that Madeleine "died" on the Sunday and therefore could not have been seen between then and Thursday.

You must concede that it would not be an easy thing to do to conceal that one of the children who had travelled in a party was missing without her absence being noticed.

Who was the child masquerading as Madeleine and being signed in and out of the crèche and who took part in activities?

The files do not contain every iota of the McCann holiday nor do they contain all the intelligence gathered.  One of the first diligences performed by the PJ was to find out when and where Madeleine was seen as well as when she was last seen by someone who was not a family member.

It was elementary and it was carried out.  Mr Amaral has come up with one or two interesting ideas as to how the body was disposed of ... he has never made the suggestion that anything happened to her before the alarm was raised on Thursday.
That is because he had the evidence that was not the case.  To think the PJ did not check this out thoroughly is, I think, rather an insult to them.

[Brietta]

i suggest you ask ...RDH...he has a page for anything you disagree with

Richard Hall is not a member of the forum as far as I am aware.

You started the thread and have promoted Richard Hall's opinion in various posts since then.  If he has made an assertion, I presume he has backed up how he reached his conclusions.
In my opinion that would include some suggestion as to what was done with the child's body he claims was lying about somewhere in Luz between Sunday and Thursday.

[Lace]

Date: 2007/05/08

 Witness Statement

 Jacqueline Mary Williams

 Occupation: Pre-school teacher

 Place of Work: OC


 Statement translated by Robert Murat.

 She has been in Portugal since 27th March 2007, the date on which she began work at the OC, where she works as a pre-school teacher, she signed her contract with MW in London.

 She clarifies that between the dates of 23rd April to 4th May 2007 she worked with a group of children belonging to OC guests, aged between 12 months and two years, called "Toddlers 1".

 When questioned she states that the crêche is open every day, except for Saturdays at the resort, which is the day off for all the nannies, on Saturdays there is just a support service for any eventual need, involving two nannies.

 She also clarifies that the "Toddlers 1" group is divided into two subgroups of children, each composed of three children each group dependent on one nanny and that she was responsible for one of these subgroups.

 With regard to the facts being investigated, she says that in brief moments and in a formal manner (just saying "hello" and "goodbye") she had contact with Madeleine, explaining that she did not belong to her group, these contacts took place when the children were eating, as all the children ate together in the Tapas at the same time.

 She says that Madeleine belonged to the Mini Club group for children aged between three and five, explaining that the Mini Club installations were in the same building as the OC reception and that the Toddlers are next to the Tapas bar.

 She mentions that Madeleine has two twin siblings (a boy and a girl) aged two, who belonged to the Toddlers 2 group.

 

So,  a nanny who witnessed Madeleine having high tea.

No doubt this won't be Madeleine she saw,  it will be a stand in,  who is sitting next to  the twins.

[Alice Purjorick]

Date: 2007/05/08

 Witness Statement

 Jacqueline Mary Williams

 Occupation: Pre-school teacher

 Place of Work: OC


 Statement translated by Robert Murat.

 She has been in Portugal since 27th March 2007, the date on which she began work at the OC, where she works as a pre-school teacher, she signed her contract with MW in London.

 She clarifies that between the dates of 23rd April to 4th May 2007 she worked with a group of children belonging to OC guests, aged between 12 months and two years, called "Toddlers 1".

 When questioned she states that the crêche is open every day, except for Saturdays at the resort, which is the day off for all the nannies, on Saturdays there is just a support service for any eventual need, involving two nannies.

 She also clarifies that the "Toddlers 1" group is divided into two subgroups of children, each composed of three children each group dependent on one nanny and that she was responsible for one of these subgroups.

 With regard to the facts being investigated, she says that in brief moments and in a formal manner (just saying "hello" and "goodbye") she had contact with Madeleine, explaining that she did not belong to her group, these contacts took place when the children were eating, as all the children ate together in the Tapas at the same time.

 She says that Madeleine belonged to the Mini Club group for children aged between three and five, explaining that the Mini Club installations were in the same building as the OC reception and that the Toddlers are next to the Tapas bar.

 She mentions that Madeleine has two twin siblings (a boy and a girl) aged two, who belonged to the Toddlers 2 group.

 

So,  a nanny who witnessed Madeleine having high tea.

No doubt this won't be Madeleine she saw,  it will be a stand in, who is sitting next to  the twins.

Have you been watching "Albert RN" on an old movie channel ? or perhaps Mr Hall had.

[G-Unit]

Date: 2007/05/08

 Witness Statement

 Jacqueline Mary Williams

 Occupation: Pre-school teacher

 Place of Work: OC


 Statement translated by Robert Murat.

 She has been in Portugal since 27th March 2007, the date on which she began work at the OC, where she works as a pre-school teacher, she signed her contract with MW in London.

 She clarifies that between the dates of 23rd April to 4th May 2007 she worked with a group of children belonging to OC guests, aged between 12 months and two years, called "Toddlers 1".

 When questioned she states that the crêche is open every day, except for Saturdays at the resort, which is the day off for all the nannies, on Saturdays there is just a support service for any eventual need, involving two nannies.

 She also clarifies that the "Toddlers 1" group is divided into two subgroups of children, each composed of three children each group dependent on one nanny and that she was responsible for one of these subgroups.

 With regard to the facts being investigated, she says that in brief moments and in a formal manner (just saying "hello" and "goodbye") she had contact with Madeleine, explaining that she did not belong to her group, these contacts took place when the children were eating, as all the children ate together in the Tapas at the same time.

 She says that Madeleine belonged to the Mini Club group for children aged between three and five, explaining that the Mini Club installations were in the same building as the OC reception and that the Toddlers are next to the Tapas bar.

 She mentions that Madeleine has two twin siblings (a boy and a girl) aged two, who belonged to the Toddlers 2 group.

 

So,  a nanny who witnessed Madeleine having high tea.

No doubt this won't be Madeleine she saw,  it will be a stand in,  who is sitting next to  the twins.

Why the assumption that Madeleine would be seated next to the twins? I would expect each group to be seated together so the nanny in charge of them had them all in sight until they were signed out by their parents. 

There were 15 children between 3 and 5 years, 8 babies, 18 Toddlers and 7 Juniors present that week; total 48. All were entitled to High Tea. Some would arrive with nannys and some with parents. There were many siblings.
No nanny worth the title would allow her charges to leave their group until a parent came and signed for them.

[Lace]

Why the assumption that Madeleine would be seated next to the twins? I would expect each group to be seated together so the nanny in charge of them had them all in sight until they were signed out by their parents. 

There were 15 children between 3 and 5 years, 8 babies, 18 Toddlers and 7 Juniors present that week; total 48. All were entitled to High Tea. Some would arrive with nannys and some with parents. There were many siblings.
No nanny worth the title would allow her charges to leave their group until a parent came and signed for them.

The parents were present when the children ate their tea,  I would imagine that when the parents arrived the children would be seated with the parents.

[Lace]

Madeleine's presence may not have been specifically noticed by those who didn't have to know she was there as those taking her to and from activities had to know ... but I suggest had she not been present it would have caused comment and excuses would have been required to explain her absence.

The suggestion she was not seen from Sunday onwards is ludicrous.

This 'stand in child'   she must have been a brilliant little actress.    Can you imagine a child of four suddenly being asked to be the child of someone else's parents.   Being briefed quickly with 'you must call these people Mummy and Daddy and the twins are your brother and sister ok?'    no child of four would be able to step into that role for a week.   Also this child would strangely be holidaying at just the right time.

Or maybe the McCann's went to the crèche with no child and just signed Madeleine in?    Can you imagine that?  'where's Madeleine'   'what do you mean,  she's right there'.

[Benice]

This 'stand in child'   she must have been a brilliant little actress.    Can you imagine a child of four suddenly being asked to be the child of someone else's parents.   Being briefed quickly with 'you must call these people Mummy and Daddy and the twins are your brother and sister ok?'    no child of four would be able to step into that role for a week.   Also this child would strangely be holidaying at just the right time.

Or maybe the McCann's went to the crèche with no child and just signed Madeleine in?    Can you imagine that?  'where's Madeleine'   'what do you mean,  she's right there'.

The whole idea of a substitute child is too ridiculous for words.

Also:

Imagine as an employee of MW  being approached by someone who was a total stranger to you until a couple of days ago  - who tells you that their child has died in their apartment and they want you to help them to cover it up from the police.

Would you:

Call the police?

Call the men in white coats?

or say

Oh is that all?  Yes of course I will.  No problem - what do you want me to do?.  Oh btw - what was your name again?
-----------------------------------------------------

The idea that they would agree to becoming an accessory to such a serious crime -  is as ludicrous as the idea that Gerry would approach a complete stranger with such an admission and  request in the first place.

AIMO

[Lace]

The whole idea of a substitute child is too ridiculous for words.

Also:

Imagine as an employee of MW  being approached by someone who was a total stranger to you until a couple of days ago  - who tells you that their child has died in their apartment and they want you to help them to cover it up from the police.

Would you:

Call the police?

Call the men in white coats?

or say

Oh is that all?  Yes of course I will.  No problem - what do you want me to do?.  Oh btw - what was your name again?
-----------------------------------------------------

The idea that they would agree to becoming an accessory to such a serious crime -  is as ludicrous as the idea that Gerry would approach a complete stranger with such an admission and  request in the first place.

AIMO

Yet this man is selling his video's and touring giving lectures   beggars belief.